Punjab

Sangrur

CC/409/2019

Munna Allias Mohammad Roshan - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Jain

11 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 409

 Instituted on:   01.08.2019

                                                                         Decided on:     11.11.2021

 

Munna @ Mohammad Roshan aged about 70 years son of Rehmat, resident of Ifthkar Ganj, Backside Dr. Nizam Hospital, Sirhandi Gate, Malerkotla.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

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

2.             AEE, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, City-II, Satta Bazar, Malerkotla, 148 023.

             ….Opposite parties 

 

For the complainant    : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.              

For OPs                    : Shri Mohit Verma, Adv.

 

 

Quorum                                           

S.P. Sood, President

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

ORDER BY:     

S.P. Sood, President.

1.             Complainant Shri Munna @ Mohammad Roshan (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint alleging inter-alia that he is connection holder bearing account number 133NA530009H  and electricity meter was duly installed at his premises to record his consumption.  Whatever bills were being issued by officials of the OPs pertaining to his consumption, he has been paying the same regularly without any default.  This is how the complainant happens to be the consumer of the OPs who can well said to be service provider.  Further complainant has alleged that somewhere in the month of September/October, 2017, the electricity meter installed in his premises got burnt and this is how complainant brought this fact to the notice of the OPs who visited his premises in January, 2018 and after removing the old and burnt meter they installed a new meter in its place. However, the old meter was neither packed in the cardboard box nor the same was sealed and even complainant was not made to write his signatures on the said box.  Afterwards to his utter surprise, complainant received impugned bill on 17.7.2019 whereby a demand of Rs.10832/ was raised pertaining to his consumption from 16.5.2019 to 17.7.2019 and the said demand also included current surcharge along with ER and octroi, but above said impugned bill being totally wrong and against the facts, complainant immediately approached OP number 2 with a specific request to withdraw the same or to rectify it but all his requests fell on deaf ears.  Further complainant has also alleged that electricity meter installed in his premises was in perfect working condition and the same was also never got checked in any laboratory set up by the OPs.  So virtually for all these reasons, the impugned bill is patently bad and is completely unwarranted and when the same was not withdrawn despite his numerous requests, the above said action shows that OPs were clearly deficient in service.  This is how when nothing tangible happened in this regard then complainant was left with no other alternative except to approach this Commission with the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, concerned officials of the OPs have contested this complaint on the basis of locus standi, cause of action, maintainability and that the complainant having not approached this Commission with clean hands.  Further it was also averred that although complainant happens to be holder of  domestic electric connection having account number 133NA530009H and consequently a consumer of the answering OPs but the fact of the matter is that after the old meter existing at his premises got burnt and the same was replaced with a new one thereafter old meter was duly packed as per the procedure normally followed by officials of the OPs. Further it was also alleged that the impugned bill was issued to the complainant because his account was overhauled by the OP’s by audit party vide half margin number 19 dated 10.1.2019 as his meter was changed on R-Code and the bill amount was charged on average basis. However when actual consumption data of consumer was checked and verified from the consumption details then it was noticed that complainant’s  actual consumption was that of 1524 units between 8.7.2016 to 17.11.2016 whereas the complainant was make to pay on average basis only for 66 units. This is how after deducting the above said 66 units for which the complainant had already paid bills from his actual consumption of 1524 units, a bill worth Rs.10832/- was issued  for 1458 units which has now been impugned by the complainant, whereas the fact of the matter is that the above said amount pertains to his actual consumption and the same is clearly chargeable from him, therefore, there is no question of the disputed bill being bad in the eyes of law.  Even this detail was also explained to the complainant, but instead of paying up the outstanding amount he preferred to file this complaint. However, as explained above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and when the demand raised by them is perfectly legal and valid, so present complaint is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed right away.  Besides this.  other averments of the complaint were also denied emphatically and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

3.             After completion of the pleadings both the parties were called upon to lead their evidence and during this process the complainant relied upon his sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, electricity bill Ex.C-2 and detail of payment Ex.C-3 and  closed his evidence.

4.             On the other hand, OPs have relied upon Ex.OP-1 as affidavit of Er. Prince Kumar, AE/SDO and Ex.OP-2 copy of half margin note number 19 dated 10.1.2019 and closed its evidence.

5.             None of the parties submitted their written arguments.  It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant under DS category is having a sanctioned load of 5.0 KW and bill dated 17.7.2019 was issued to the consumer and the amount of Rs.10832/- was charged from the consumer through  disputed bill.  The complainant in his complaint has submitted that in the month of September/October, 2017 the meter installed in the house of the complainant got burnt and he lodged the complaint with the OPs and new meter in January 2018 was installed. The consumer could not rebut the claim of the OPs that the meter was faulty since 29.07.2017 as mentioned in half margin note. Further the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant paid all the bills issued by the OPs from January, 2018 onwards but the perusal of the documents on record show that no such bill/payment receipt has been placed on record by the complainant which could fortify the claim as mentioned above.  In view of the above, the account of the complainant was overhauled by the OPs by the audit party vide half margin number 19 dated 10.1.2019 as his meter was changed on R-Code and the bill amount has been rightly charged on average basis.  The amount raised by the OPs is found to be correct and the account of the complainant has been overhauled by the OPs as per clause 21.5.2 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 2018 of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited.  As such, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complaint deserves dismissal.

6.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 

7.             A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                November 11, 2021.

 

              (Sarita Garg)  (Vinod Kumar Gulati)     (S.P. Sood)

                   Member              Member           President