DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/68/2020

Date of Institution : 28.02.2020

Date of Decision : 06.10.2020

Anish Kumar s/o Sh. Ashok Kumar C/o M/s D.A. Poultry Farm, Village Maur Nabha, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala, Punjab.  …Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Tapa, District Barnala through its Assistant Executive Engineer. 

2. Punjab Power Corporation Limited, Sub Urban Division, Dhanaula Road, Barnala through its Senior Executive Engineer.

3. Punjab Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala through its Chairman.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. RK Singla counsel for complainant.

Sh. SK Kotia counsel for opposite parties.  

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Anish Kumar filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act (as amended up to date)  against Punjab Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Tapa and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that he is the sole proprietor of M/s D.A. Poultry Farm, Village Maur Nabha, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala, Punjab and running the said poultry farm to earn livelihood through self employment and have deposited all the electricity bills indicating the meter status OK well in time, so he is consumer of the opposite parties having Electricity Account No. L62MS620133W. 

3. The complainant further alleged that he received a bill dated 29.1.2020 for a sum of Rs. 70,720/- which include a sum of Rs. 58,700/- as sundry charges. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 to get detail of sundry charges who told that the electricity meter of the complainant was checked by the opposite parties and it was found that the meter is running slow. The complainant told the opposite party No. 1 that the checking was not cone in the presence of the complainant and nor the complainant was issued any notice for the deposit of Rs. 58,700/-. The complainant also demanded the copy of checking report and copy of notice but they did not give any proper reply. The electricity meter of the complainant is of MS and its reading is taken by JE a technically qualified person and JE never told the complainant that meter is running slow. Further, all the electricity bills raised by the opposite parties always indicated meter status OK. Further, all the seals of the meter are intact and the same meter is running in the said connection till date since its installation. There is no allegation of theft against the complainant and tampering of meter. Moreover, if there is allegation of meter running slow then it was in the ME Lab in the presence of complainant. So, the act of the opposite parties is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 58,700/- raised in the bill dated 29.1.2020 as sundry charges alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.    

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for mental torture, agony and  harassment.             

3) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief the Forum may deemed proper may also be given. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite parties filed joint written reply taking legal objections on the grounds that the complainant already deposited the alleged amount of Rs. 70,720/- on 10.2.2020 vide receipt No. 140575252 after accepting it as correct without any objection so now he has no right to file the present complaint. Further, they objected the case being not maintainable, bad for misjoinder of necessary parties, estoppal and not come to the Commission with clean hands. 

5. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant is running his business of poultry farm as commercial one and get the connection of electricity as MS (Medium Supply) which is used for commercial purpose vide Account No. L62MS620133W. It is further submitted that the said connection was checked by the Additional Superintendent Engineer, Enforcement, Barnala on 31.10.2019 on the request letter dated 25.10.2019 of Assistant Executive Engineer DS Sub Division, PSPCL, Tapa-1 in the presence of representative of the complainant and Er. Manpreet Singh. The checking report was prepared on 31.10.2019 vide checking report No. 544/42 at the spot in which it is mentioned that the “connection of the consumer was checked on the letter of SDO, Tapa dated 25.10.2019  after breaking its LT/CT seals and on the meter display it was found that voltage of R Phase was 262.9 YOS 257.1V and Bds 87.61V. The meter had been DDL and checked its accuracy with the help of MT 365 moving set which was found 31.59% slow, as the energy meter of the consumer was found 31.59% slow so instructions were issued to correct the account of the consumer. To correct the voltage of energy meter at the spot LT/CT meter in open condition hand over to Er. Manpreet Singh.” The report was prepaed on the site in the presence of the representative of the complainant and delivered the copy of the report to the representative of the complainant. On the basis of report a letter No. 4578 dated 8.11.2019 was issued to the complainant in which it is mentioned that it was found vide checking dated 31.10.2019 that the meter of the complainant was slow by 31.59% so complainant was requested to deposit Rs. 58,680/- within period of 7 days alongwith calculation sheet. 

6. It is further submitted that complainant after due verification deposited the said amount alongwith other consumption charges totaling Rs. 70,720/- on 10.2.2020 after accepting it as correct without any objection. Further, slow running of the meter found only on the checking of enforcement agency of the opposite parties as the Executive Assistant Engineer, PSPCL Sub Division Tapa-1 doubted that the said consumption meter of the complainant is running slow vide letter dated 25.10.2019 to the enforcement agency on the basis of letter the enforcement agency checked the meter and clear the doubt by checking the meter is running slow. It is submitted that amount of Rs. 58,680/- charged by the opposite parties only for slow running of meter not for theft or any other purpose. Lastly, they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs of Rs. 50,000/-.

7. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7, copy of receipt Ex.C-8, copy of letter dated 3.3.2020 Ex.C-9, courier receipt Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. 

8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties  tendered in evidence affidavit of Er. Amandeep Singh Ex.OP-1.2.3/1, copy of checking report Ex.OP-1.2.3/2, copy of calculation sheet Ex.OP-1.2.3/3, copy of notice Ex.OP-1.2.3/4, copy of payment receipt Ex.OP-1.2.3/5, copy of letter dated 25.10.2019 Ex.OP-1.2.3/6 and closed the evidence. 

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

10. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is having a MS Electricity connection vide Account No. L62MS620133W. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that they have demanded Rs. 58,700/- vide bill dated 29.1.2020 Ex.C-2 on account of sundry charges which was deposited by the complainant on 10.2.2020 Ex.C-8. However, the complainant argued that this amount was deposited by him under protest vide letter Ex.C-9 dated 10.2.2020 which was sent through courier Ex.C-10. 

11. The main objection of the complainant in the present complaint is that the checking of the meter was not done in his presence nor the complainant was issued any notice for the deposit of Rs. 58,700/-. He further has taken a plea that the status of his meter was found OK which was proved by him vide copies of bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 and amount was deposited by him under protest.

12. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties firstly tendered in evidence copy of letter dated 25.10.2019 Ex.OP-1.2.3/6 which was written by Assistant Executive Engineer, Tapa-1 to Enforcement Agency, Barnala in which they mentioned the list of doubted Account Numbers to replace their meters after checking of connection. In this list the Account number of the complainant is mentioned at Sr. No. 11  MS62/133 LT/CT one phase voltage less. The opposite parties further argued that on the basis of this letter Ex.OP-1.2.3/6 the connection of the complainant was checked on 31.10.2019 in the presence of his representative namely Pukhraj Goyal and his signatures were appended at two places where there was requirement of his signatures. In our view the checking report Ex.OP-1.2.3/2 which is most important document of the present complaint must signed by the representative of the complainant as no stranger can sign on any checking report. In this checking report Ex.OP-1.2.3/2 it is mentioned that the “connection of the consumer was checked on the letter of SDO, Tapa dated 25.10.2019  after breaking its LT/CT seals and on the meter display it was found that voltage of R Phase was 262.9 YOS 257.1V and Bds 87.61V. The meter had been DDL and checked its accuracy with the help of MT 365 moving set which was found 31.59% slow, as the energy meter of the consumer was found 31.59% slow so instructions were issued to correct the account of the consumer. To correct the voltage of energy meter at the spot LT/CT meter in open condition hand over to Er. Manpreet Singh.” Further, this report is also signed by Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Tapa-1 and JE of the opposite parties which makes the same as an authenticated document. 

13. After checking on 31.10.2019 the opposite parties issued letter dated 8.11.2019 Ex.OP-1.2.3/4 to the complainant Anish Kumar in which they mentioned that checking No. 42/544 of the meter of the complainant was done on 31.10.2019 and found that the meter of the complainant was running slow by 31.59% and after calculation Rs. 58,680/- was charged from the complainant which will be deposited within 7 days. The opposite parties also sent calculation sheet Ex.OP-1.2.3/3 alongwith this letter. But the complainant has not given any reply of the same. In our view by not giving any reply of this letter the complainant has not contested this letter Ex.OP-1.2.3/4 of the opposite parties. 

14. In this way, the opposite parties proved their case beyond any doubt by way of cogent and convincing evidence, so there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of them. 

15. In view of our above discussion, present complaint has no merit and same is dismissed. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance.  

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        6th Day of October 2020

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member