| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 404 of 18.10.2017 Decided on: 6.1.2021 Darshan Ram son of Nathu Ram, resident of village Gazislar, Samana, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
- Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through its Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Sub Division, Samana, District Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY
Sh.L.S.Sandhu, counsel for complainant. Sh.P.S.Walia, counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Darshan Ram (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
- The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the consumer of electricity connection bearing a/c No.P65BF390088H, installed at his house. It is averred that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste category and thus meter connection of the complainant is under concession by the Punjab Govt.
- It is averred that the OP issued letters No.1422 dated 31.8.2017 and 1633 dated 18.9.2017 vide which complainant was directed to pay Rs.3140/- & Rs.77510/-. It is averred that on receipt of said letters complainant visited the office of the OPs but nothing was explained and the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other. It is averred that the OPs issued wrong and illegal notice/ letters for the deposit of the amounts which is much higher than the normal consumption. It is averred that the complainant has already paid all the consumption bills and he is not liable to pay this amount. The non withdrawal of the notice/letter amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental harassment and tension to the complainant.
- Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by directing the OPs to withdraw the letters No.1422 dated 31.8.2017 and 1633 dated 18.9.2017 for the amount of Rs.3140/- and 77510/- respectively and also to pay Rs.15000/- as costs of compensation and punitive damages alongwith counsel fee and litigation expenses.
- Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. It is admitted that the OPs issued letters No.1422 dated 31.8.2017 and No.1633 dated 18.9.2017 for deposit of the amount of Rs.3140/- and Rs.77510/-.It is averred that the meter of the complainant was removed vide M.C.O. No.94395/014 dated 25.7.2016 having been burnt .Same was checked in the M.E.Lab vide challan No.21 dated 16.9.2016 and the complaint was found liable for the deposit of the above said amounts due to excessive load and difference of reading .There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In evidence the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence.
- The OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Er.Sukhraj Singh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs issued two bills one for Rs.3410/- and the other for Rs.77510/-.The ld. counsel further argued that they have not mentioned that how they have calculated the amount of Rs.77510/-. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant is working as labourer and he is regularly paying the bills. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste category and concession is giving by the Govt. regarding the electricity. The ld. counsel further argued that the demand letter is vague so the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant is directed to pay Rs.3410/- and Rs.77510/- due to difference in meter reading as the audit party has found difference in the reading. The ld. counsel further argued that the bill was rightly sent so the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove his complaint, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8. Exs.C1 to C3 are the electricity bills,Ex.C4 is letter demanding amount of Rs.3140/-, Ex.C5 is another letter demanding Rs.77510/-.
- On behalf of the OPs Er.Sukhraj Singh, Asstt. Engineer has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA.He has tendered document,Ex.OP2.
- The complainant has challenged the letter,Ex.C5 vide which amount of Rs.77510/- was demanded from him. It is mentioned in this letter that the audit party, Samana checked his connection and there was difference in the reading, so he was directed to pay Rs.77510/-.The breakup of the amount is mentioned as SOP Rs.65687, ED Rs.8539/- IDF Rs.3284 totaling Rs.77510/- but this application is totally vague as it is not mentioned in this letter that how they have calculated Rs.65687/-. The OPs were duty bound to send complete breakup that how they have demanded this entire amount. The consumer is belonging to SC category and is already paying the regular charges. So without any detail he is not liable to pay any amount. The OPs were duty bound to give the detail that how there was difference in the meter reading and how the amount was calculated. So there is total absence of calculation for this amount. The OPs are duty bound to send the complete breakup of the amount to the consumer. So on the basis of this demand letter,Ex.C5, the complainant is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.77510/-.This amount cannot be chargeable as the OPs have not placed on the file when the account was opened and how much load was sanctioned. So without that, amount cannot be charged.
- So due to our above discussion complaint stands allowed as both the letters, Exs.C4 and C5 are vague. The OPs are restrained from recovering the amount of Rs.3310/- and Rs.77510/- from the complainant. However the OPs are at liberty to send complete breakup of the new bills to the consumer/complainant alongwith supporting documents to justify that how they have entitled to charge the amount. Parties are to bear their own costs.
ANNOUNCED DATED:6.1.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
