Sudesh Rani, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties').
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that her husband Sarup Chand got installed an electricity connection bearing No. B525K290997 in his premises. Sarup Chand has expired on 28-12-2017. After his death, complainant is using connection and paying bills regularly as issued by the opposite parties from time to time. Nothing is due against her towards electricity charges. The complainant received bill dated 15-12-2017 for Rs.10,210/- showing consumption of 0 units payable upto 6-1-2018 by cheque and upto 9-1-2018 in cash. On receipt of said bill, the complainant approached opposite party No. 2 and requested to correct the bill as per actual consumption but the opposite party No. 2 did not agree and threatened to disconnect the connection. However the opposite party No. 2 asked the complainant to deposit the bill amount in installments. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/- with opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 retained the bill-cum receipt with him. Thereafter, complainant again deposited a sum of Rs. 2200/- with the opposite party No. 2 vide receipt dated 18-4-2018 but the said amount has not been deducted in next bill. Again, complainant received a bill dated 29-4-2018 for a sum of Rs, 13,020/- in which a sum of Rs.11,625/- has been shown as arrears of previous financial year. This bill was payable upto 14-5-2018. On receipt of said bill, complainant approached opposite party No. 2 to correct the bill so that she will be able to deposit the bill amount well in time but the opposite party No. 2 did not bother and threatened to disconnect the connection.
It is alleged that the said bill is illegal, null and void. It is against rules and regulations. The complainant did not tamper the working of the meter in any manner. She again and again approached opposite party No.2 and asked to withdraw bill dated 29-4-2018 but to no effect.
It is further pleaded that the complainant also moved an application dated 16-5-2018 to opposite party No. 2 regarding working of the meter, but to no effect.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and has claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental tension and agony etc., The complainant has also requested for direction to the opposite party to withdraw bill dated 29-4-2018. Hence, this complaint.
Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable. That the complainant is not a consumer. There is no contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. The electricity connection neither in the name of the complainant nor the complainant at any stage requested for transfer of electricity connection in her name. That the complainant did not come with clean hands. She has suppressed material facts.
On merits also, it is admitted that Sarup Chand got installed electricity connection in his name. Bill dated 25-12-2017 for Rs.10,210/- duly issued by the opposite parties as per consumption recorded in the meter which included previous bill balance amount which was not deposited by the complainant. The bill for Rs. 10,210/- has been issued as per actual consumption. It is denied that the bill dated 25-12-2017 is showing consumption of Zero Units. The previous Bill of Rs.920/- was also added in this bill. It is admitted that on receipt of said bill, complainant approached opposite party No. 2 and requested to correct the bill as per actual consumption.
It is further mentioned that opposite parties made clear to the complainant that total bill was issued as per consumption and then the complainant requested for installments. The opposite parties accepted her request and allowed her to deposit in installments. The deposit of Rs.3,000/- by complainant is not accepted. However deposit of Rs.2,200/- on 18-04-2018 is admitted.
It is further mentioned that this amount was duly deducted by the opposite parties in the next bill and issued receipt. No other payment has been made by complainant against bill dated 25-12-2017.
It is reiterated that in the bill dated 29-04-2018, previous bills were also added. Receipt of application dated 16-5-2018 is denied. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of her claim, complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 6-6-2018 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-1), photocopy of bill (Ex. C-2), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-3) and photocopy of bill (Ex. C-4).
In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sandeep Kumar Garg dated 13-7-2018 (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of details of bills (Ex. OP-1/2),photocopy of bills (Ex. OP-1/3 & Ex. OP-1/14) and closed the evidence.
The learned counsel for the complainant also submitted written arguments.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that although the complainant deposited Rs. 3,000/- but the opposite parties have admitted receipt only of Rs. 2200/-. This amount is not reflected in any bill. It amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant has also placed on record copy of letter dated 16-5-2018 (Ex. C-3) whereby complainant has required for change of meter but the opposite parties have not taken any action on this application. It also amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. The complainant has impugned bill dated 29-4-2018 (Ex. C-2). This bill is for zero consumption but the opposite parties are claiming huge amount as consumption charges. It is contradictory. It also amount to deficiency in service. As reading is shown as zero, therefore, the opposite parties cannot claim any recovery of the previous bill dated 29-4-2018. As such, complaint be accepted and necessary relief be given.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that complainant has admittedly deposited Rs. 2200/- on 18-4-2018. This deposit is reflected in the bill copy of which is Ex. OP-1/14). This bill proves total payable amount against complainant as Rs. 11,400/- and credit of Rs. 2200/- was given and after deducting this amount, previous balance was Rs. 9425/-. Bill for Rs. 11,010/- was issued to the complainant which includes Rs. 9425/- outstanding balance. The contention of the complainant that bill dated 29-4-2018 was for zero unit is not acceptable. It is also not the case of the complainant that she has never used electricity during this period. Of course complainant has also placed on record copy of letter dated 16-5-2018 but there is nothing to prove that this letter was submitted in the office of the opposite parties. The complainant is also required to deposit requisite fee for checking of the meter. This fact further corroborates that no application was moved by the complainant as alleged.
We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.
From the reliefs claimed by the complainant it emerges that complainant has prayed for withdrawal of bill dated 29-4-2018 but the complainant has not mentioned any reason to claim withdrawal of this bill. In the complaint, it is simply alleged that bill is illegal, null and void and against rules but no ground to allege the bill illegal or against rules is shown.
From the version of the complainant, it also emerges that she has claimed deposit of Rs. 3,000/- but there is no receipt to prove this fact. The complainant has produced receipt (Ex. C-1). It only proves payment of Rs. 2200/- on 18-4-2018. The opposite parties have also admitted receipt of this amount. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties are again claiming this amount but bill (Ex. OP-1/14) shows that due credit has been given to the complainant regarding amount of Rs. 2200/- deposited on 18-4-2018. The total payable amount is Rs. 11,400/- after deducting Rs. 2200/- and after adding outstanding amount of Rs. 9425/-. Therefore, it is proved that amount deposited by the complainant was duly accounted for in the next bill. There is nothing to show any illegality in the bill dated 29-4-2018.
The complainant has also alleged that she moved an application dated 16-5-2018 for change of meter but there is no other supporting evidence to prove that application was submitted with the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not admitted receipt of this application. Moreover, in case of change of meter, the complainant was also required to deposit prescribed fee to challenge correctness of the meter. It is not the case of the complainant that she has already deposited requisite fee to challenge the meter.
The net conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. As such, this complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.
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. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced :
14-02-2019
(M.P.Singh Pahwa )
President
(Manisha)
Member
