| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.263 of 01-10-2018 Decided on 17-07-2019 Roop Singh aged about 55 years S/o Gurdev Singh (Gurdit Singh) R/o Near Aklia Road, Bhagta Patti, Village Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil Phul District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary. 2.X.E.N. PSPCL, Civil Line, Sub Division, Bathinda. 3.S.D.O., PSPCL, Civil Line, Sub Division, B-92, Bhagta Bhai Ka, District Bathinda. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Manisha, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.H.P.S Chauhan, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.Inderjit Singh, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Roop Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electricity connection bearing No.B92BV-250290N. It was installed outside his house. Since the date of its installation, the complainant is using the electric connection and paying the consumption bills regularly. He has already paid the bill up to April 2018. It is alleged that opposite parties have never shown any arrears against the complainant, but they wrongly and illegally issued bill No.676 dated 13.6.2018 for Rs.92,790/-. The consumption of the complainant was only 243 units. He approached opposite parties for correction of the bill, but their officials did not give him any satisfactory reply. Opposite parties did not get amount deposited from the complainant as per consumption after correcting the bill. Thereafter they again issued bill dated 10.8.2018 for Rs.96,410/- against consumption of 266 units. The complainant again approached opposite parties with the request to correct the bill, but they postponed the matter and also remained adamant to deposit the bill amount. He never consumed electricity beyond 250 units for two months. No detail has been mentioned by opposite parties regarding disputed amount. It is further alleged that the demand of Rs.96,410/- is totally illegal untenable, unjustified, which amounts to deficiency in service. He also got issued legal notice dated 7.9.2018 through his counsel, but to no response. It is further alleged that due to act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered from mental tension, harassment and botheration. For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in addition to withdrawal of impugned amount and cost of complaint to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version. In their joint written version, opposite parties have raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file the complaint. He has not come with clean hands before this Forum. He has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. As per opposite parties, true facts are that on 7.12.2017, checking was conducted by the officials of PSPCL in the premises of complainant in the presence of one Lovepreet, the representative of the complainant. On checking, checking team found that the complainant is holding two electricity connections i.e. one bearing account No.B92BB25/0290N and another is under BPL category. The meter reader used to note down the reading of only one connection bearing account No.892BB25/0290N. Accordingly, the officials of opposite parties used to send the bills regarding the connection and complainant used to deposit bills amount. Another BPL connection could not be billed since its installation i.e. since 2009. During checking, checking team further found that most of the load of the complainant was put on BPL connection and further its reading was noticed to be as 16158. Accordingly, checking team recommended to start billing of the BPL connection and further recommended to charge due amount. Detailed checking report was prepared at the site in the presence of Lovepreet, representative of the complainant, but he refused to sign on the checking report. Copy of the checking report was supplied to Lovepreet at the site. It is further mentioned that on the basis of the checking report, demand notice bearing memo No.022 dated 2.1.2018 thereby raising a demand of Rs.90,070/- was issued to the complainant directing him to deposit demanded amount within a period of 7 days, failing which, his connection shall be disconnected and due amount will be charged from his another connection No.BB25/0290N, but he has not complied with the demand notice. Accordingly, due amount has now been charged in bill, which has been issued regarding another connection bearing No.BB25/0290N, but he complainant instead of depositing the demanded amount, has filed this complaint on flimsy grounds and concealed the actual and true facts from this Forum. It is also asserted that the demand has been raised on account of actual consumption and as per reading shown in the meter installed in the premises of the complainant. Opposite parties are well within their right to recover the demanded amount from the complainant as per their rules. There is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. It has been filed just to harass and humiliate opposite parties. It is liable to be dismissed with special cost to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as provided U/s 26 of 'Act'. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having DS electricity connection bearing account No.B92BB25/0290N. He is also holding another electricity connection under BPL category. In further written version, opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, they have prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C1); photocopy of postal receipts, (Ex.C2); photocopies of bills, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C12); his affidavit dated 4.10.2018, (Ex.C13) and submitted written arguments. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence photocopy of checking report, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of memo, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of consumption (Ex.OP1/3); photocopies of bills, (Ex.OP1/4 and Ex.OP1/5); affidavit of Er.Gurmail Singh dated 29.11.2018, (Ex.OP1/6) and submitted written arguments. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for parties. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. The complainant has mainly impugned the demand of Rs.90,070/-, which is shown as sundry charges in the bill dated 13.6.2018, (Ex.C12). This bill is qua account in the name of the complainant and having meter No.307315. The version of opposite parties is that on 7.12.2017, checking was conducted in the premises of the complainant and on checking, it was found that he is holding two electricity connections, one bearing account No.B92BV-250290N and another under BPL category. It is further case of opposite parties that the meter reader used to note down reading of only one connection and sent the bills regarding this connection. Therefore, from this version, it emerges that as per opposite parties, the complainant is having two electricity connections in the same premises. Admittedly, two electricity connections in the same premises are permissible only under certain conditions. It is not clear that whether alleged second connection was under those conditions or not. Opposite parties have also placed on record checking report dated 7.12.2017, (Ex.OP1/1). Of-course, in this report, name of consumer is mentioned as Roop Singh (complainant), but the account number and meter number are not mentioned. No other documentary evidence is brought on record to prove that the complainant ever applied for connection under BPL category and he has been released it. In these circumstances, version of opposite parties that two electricity connections were running, is not proved. Moreso when account number and meter number of the alleged second connection are not revealed. No copy of application or other document are brought on record to prove that the complainant ever applied for connection and he was released the connection. From the evidence, there is also nothing to show that the complainant was ever issued show cause notice for this demand of Rs.90,070/-, which is shown as sundry charges in the bill, (Ex.C12). In these circumstances, demand of an amount of Rs.90,070/- is not sustainable. It amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to withdraw demand of an amount of Rs.90,070/- claimed as sundry charges. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 17-07-2019 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Manisha) Member
| |
