DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : 199/2019

Date of Institution   : 13.11.2019

Date of Decision    : 28.07.2020

 

Lalit Mohan aged 30 years son of Ramesh Kumar resident of Street No. 4, Moti Nagar, Tapa 148108 Tehsil Tapa District Barnala-148101.     

                        …Complainant

Versus

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala-147001 through its Chairman/Authorized Person. 

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Tapa-1, Tapa-148108, Barnala. 

         ...Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Parmjeet Singh counsel for complainant.

Sh. S.K. Kotia counsel for opposite parties. 

 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2.Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Lalit Mohan has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) (in short the Act) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman/Authorized Person and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the opposite parties have installed a power connection bearing account No. L62AB621451K and sanctioned load is 4.48 KW. The complainant had been paying the bills of consumption from time to time. It is alleged that the first controversial bill was issued on 14.8.2019 for an amount of Rs. 73,840/- and the next bill was issued on 10.10.2019 for Rs. 48,780/-. It is further alleged that the complainant after issuing of every bill visited the office of opposite party No. 2 and opposite party realized the mistakes and instructed to pay lesser amounts and the complainant made the payment of bill dated 14.8.2019 vide receipt dated 27.8.2019 and paid the amount of Rs. 19,000/-. It is further alleged that the complainant received bill dated 10.10.2019 and visited the opposite party No. 2 and requested them to rectify the account to avoid future complication, but the opposite party No. 2 asked the complainant to pay Rs. 19,000/-. The opposite party No. 2 furnish threatened the complainant that if the above said amount is not paid then the electricity connection will be disconnected. Therefore, the above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To withdraw all the demands raised in the bills Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4 and issued bills based on actual consumption. 

ii) To pay Rs. 20,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties appeared and filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action and locus-standi and complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious etc. On merits, it is averred that it is wrong that the complainant had been paying the bills of consumption from time to time. He had been defaulter many times and as such he is not competent to invoke the jurisdiction. It is further averred that earlier sanctioned load was 0.48 KW and load was increased to 4.48 KW, therefore bills were revised. It is further submitted that in bill dated 22.7.2019 the consumption was 882 for 34 days and bill for August-September was Rs. 11593+1507+232+580 total Rs. 13,912/-. Bill for October-November was Rs. 8261+1023+165+413 total Rs. 9,912/-. Grand total of these two bills works out to be Rs. 23,824/- and the complainant paid only Rs. 19,000/- and the balance amount is Rs. 4,824/-. Arrear of Rs. 4,733/- is due of October 2019. Therefore, the impugned bills are clarified and now the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 9,557/-. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their party and prayed for the dismissal complaint.  

4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9, receipts are Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-17 and his own affidavit Ex.C-18 and closed the evidence. Further, the Ld. Counsel for complainant has made statement that he does not want to submit any rejoinder.

5. To rebut the case of complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Amandeep Singh Ex.O.P-1.2/1, copies of Sundry register as Ex.O.P-1.2/2 & Ex.O.P.1.2/3, copy of ledger as Ex.O.P.1.2/4 and closed the evidence. 

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. 

7. The case of the complainant is that he is the consumer of opposite parties and he had been paying the electricity bills regularly to the opposite parties. Further, the opposite parties issued bill dated 14.8.2019 Ex.C-4 for an amount of Rs. 73,840/- and against this bill the complainant has paid Rs. 19,000/- vide receipt dated 27.8.2019 Ex.C-11. The opposite parties further issued bill dated 10.10.2019 Ex.C-3 for an amount of Rs. 48,780/-. But the complainant has placed on record nothing to prove that this bill has been paid by him or not. 

8. On the other hand, the opposite parties in order to rebut the case of the complainant submitted that the earlier sanctioned load of the complainant was 0.48 KW but the same was increased to 4.48 KW, as such the bills were revised. The opposite parties further submitted that bill for August-September was Rs. 11593+1507+232+580 total Rs. 13,912/- and bill for October-November was Rs. 8261+1023+165+413 total Rs. 9,912/- and the grand total of these two bills works out to be Rs. 23,824/-. The complainant out of this amount has paid only Rs. 19,000/- vide Ex.C-11 which is not disputed by the parties. Therefore, the balance amount is Rs. 4,824/- and arrear of Rs. 4,733/- is due for October 2019 and now the complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 9,557/-. To support their version, the opposite parties have placed on record an affidavit of Amandeep Singh AEE of PSPCL Sub Division, Tapa Ex.O.P.1.2/1, in which he submitted that the complainant was instructed to pay Rs. 19,000/- subject to revision of the account and now the account has been revised/settled and an amount of Rs. 9,557/- is due from the complainant.

9. The opposite parties to support their case further placed on record photocopy of sundry register Ex.O.P.1.2/2 & Ex.O.P.1.2/3 to show that the meter of the consumer was burnt and was changed on 16.9.2019 vide MCO No. 60/2039 and at that time the meter reading of the new meter was 1 unit and on 10.10.2020 the meter bill was issued and it was observed that the consumption made 524 units. This bill was issued on the average basis which was wrongly calculated. Afterwards the necessary correction was made and bill of Rs. 9,912 was issued on the basis of actual consumption. Further, in Ex.O.P.1.2/4 the opposite parties issued bill of Rs. 73,840/-, against this bill complainant was asked to deposit of Rs. 19,000/- which was duly deposited, and then the opposite parties made the necessary correction and corrected the bill amount to Rs. 13,912/- based on consumption calculated through new meter. The total of these two bills works out to be Rs. 23,824/- and out of this the complainant has paid only Rs. 19,000/- and the amount of Rs. 4,824/- is outstanding against the complainant. They further submitted that the amount of Rs. 4,733/- is due as arrear of October 2019 against the complainant. But in this regard no explanation has been given by the opposite parties about the arrears of Rs. 4,733/-.

10. As a result of the above discussion, we dispose of the present complaint with the direction to the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs. 4,824/- with the opposite parties. Further, after the consumption of 525 units the complainant will have to pay the necessary bills to the opposite parties. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. 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:

       28th Day of July, 2020 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu) Member