DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 60 of 23.2.2017

                                      Decided on: 12.1.2021

Sukhcharan Sandhu s/o Charan Singh, Royal Wings Auto Mobiles, Patiala Road, Opposite Government Kirti College, Nial, Patran, Tehsil Patran and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.(Powercom) Head Office: The Mall Road, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. XEN PSPCL,Division Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.(Powercom) Sub-Division, Patran, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.Rajiv Lohatbadi,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal,counsel for OPs.                      

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Sukhcharan Sandhu   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.(Powercom)  and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case  are that the complainant applied for electricity connection in his name on 12.3.2014 vide receipt No.3999 book No.E-8094 and paid Rs.11,525/- as security & other charges. It is averred that the meter with electricity connection was installed at the premises of workshop of the complainant. In the month of September, employees of OP No.3 issued bill of Rs.30,392/- bearing account No.S15CF611260A in the name of Sukhdarshan Singh s/o Darshan Singh from 5.7.2015 to 8.7.2015.Complainant approached OP No.2 for the correction of name and particulars vide  letter dated 2.9.2015. It is averred that OP No.2 illegally and unlawfully disconnected the connection and removed the meter without giving any notice on 4.9.2015. The complainant moved an application for the payment of outstanding bill in installments. After conducting  enquiry compromise affected between the employees of OP No.3 and the complainant and complainant deposited Rs.30392/- vide receipt No.134 on 8.9.2015. After some days new meter No.623590 and electric connection was installed by OP No.3 at the premises of complainant.
3. It is averred that in the month of July,2016,OP No.3 issued a bill of Rs.43,340/- which included Rs.17908/- last year outstanding .On 18.10.2016, complainant again moved an application for changing the location of the electricity connection, providing complete bills details for correction of name and other particulars, in the said bill but again OP No.3 illegally,unlawfully and arbitrary disconnected the electricity meter from his old premises.
4. It is averred that the complainant verified outstanding amount on website of PSPCL which showed that bill dated 28.11.2015 of Rs.17908/- of meter No.232060 was already disconnected in the month of September,2015 and new meter No.623590 was installed after outstanding amount paid by the complainant. Thus, the act of the OPs is illegal and without any right and they are misusing their authority and imposing illegal charges after the disconnection of both electricity connections. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused  huge loss in earning his livelihood and mental agony. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to restore the meter of complainant; to make necessary correction in name and other particulars of complainant in the department records; to transfer the said meter and electricity connection at the new premises; to make the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of the complaint.
5. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply having raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable;that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint;that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.
6. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that bill for the period from 5.5.2015 to 8.7.2015 was sent to the complainant amounting to Rs.30,392/- bearing account No.S15CF611260A in the name of Sukhdarshan Singh s/o Darshan Singh of meter No.232060.It is also admitted that the complainant wrote representation dated 2.9.2015. It is submitted that the complainant failed to deposit the bill of Rs.30,392/-, as such the employees of OPs went to disconnect the connection of the complainant but the complainant misbehaved with them. As such the officials of OPs wrote letter No.1592 dated 4.9.2015 against the complainant to the police and thereafter the matter was compromised and the complainant deposited the bill of Rs.30,392/- and a new meter was installed by the OPs. The OPs wrote a letter No.1693/- dated 17.9.2015 to the police authorities to withdraw their application against the complainant.
7. It is further admitted that the OPs sent a bill for the month of July,2016 for Rs.43,340/- which included Rs.17908/- as last year outstanding for the period from 8.7.2015 to 4.9.2015.It is admitted that the complainant moved an application for changing of name and for bill details. It is submitted that last date for the bill of Rs.30,392/- was 23.7.2015 but the complainant did not deposit the amount of bill and as such his connection was disconnected on 4.9.2015.There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. In evidence the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
9. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Harpal Singh, SDO alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to OP10 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
11. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant applied for electricity connection and he deposited all the security charges. The ld. counsel further argued that in the month of September OP No.3 issued bill  of Rs.30,392/- in the name of Sukhdarshan Singh s/o Darshan Singh from 5.7.2015 to 8.7.2015.The ld. counsel further argued that thereafter complainant approached OP No.2 for  correction of name and particulars of the amount. The ld. counsel further argued that OP No.2 illegally and unlawfully disconnected the connection and removed the meter.The ld. counsel further argued that  complainant moved an application for the payment of outstanding bill in installments and compromise was affected and the complainant deposited Rs.30392/- vide receipt No.134 on 8.9.2015 and the OPs installed the new meter.The ld. counsel further argued that  in the month of July,2016,OP No.3 issued a bill of Rs.43,340/- which included Rs.17908/- of last year outstanding. The ld. counsel further argued that on 18.10.2016, complainant moved an application for changing the location of the electricity connection but  OP No.3 illegally disconnected the electricity meter.The ld. counsel further argued that OPs had illegally misused their authority. Thus the OPs are deficient in service and the complainant is entitled to Rs.50,000/-as compensation.  
12. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs argued that bill for the period from 5.5.2015 to 8.7.2015 was sent to the complainant for a sum of Rs.30,392/- in the name of Sukhdarshan Singh s/o Darshan Singh of meter No.232060.The ld. counsel  admitted that the complainant has given written  representation on 2.9.2015. The ld. counsel further argued that  the complainant failed to deposit the bill amount of Rs.30,392/- , as such his connection was disconnected. The ld. counsel further argued that thereafter complainant  misbehaved with the employees of OPs and the matter was reported to the police. The ld. counsel further argued that another bill of Rs.43,340/- was sent alongwith outstanding amount. The ld. counsel further argued that last bill was of Rs.30,392/- which was not deposited and  the connection was disconnected on 4.9.2015.The ld. counsel further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed that  complaint be dismissed.
13. To prove this complaint, complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex.CWA and he has deposed as per his complaint. Ex.C1 is the receipt  in the name of Sukhcharan Sandhu s/o Charan Singh,Ex.C2 is the bill in the name of Sukhdarshan Singh s/o Darshan Singh, Ex.C3 is application to Sr.Executive Engineer, PSPCL,Patran, stating that the bill was sent on the wrong name so he is not able to deposit Rs.30,392/- at one go.Ex.C4 is a letter written by Asstt. Executive Engineer to Incharge Police Post Patran. It has been stated that the complainant deposited Rs.30,392/- vide receipt No.134 dated 8.9.2015 and the matter has been compromised so complaint dated 4.9.2015 be filed.Exs.C5 and Ex.C6 are bills.Ex.C7 is another application for change of location.
14. On the other hand,Harpal Singh SDO has tendered his affidavit,Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the pleadings made in the written statement.Ex.OP1 is the bill, Ex.OP2 is letter written by Executive Engineer to Incharge Police Post that the matter between the parties has been compromised and the applicant has deposited the amount,Ex.OP3 is  the disconnection order,Ex.OP4 is the record of complainant .
15. The only dispute in this case is that Sukhcharan Sandhu applied for electricity connection with the PSPCL while depositing Rs.11525/- vide receipt Ex.C1 but the bill was sent in the name of Sukhdarshan Singh S/o Darshan Singh for the period from 5.7.2015 to 8.7.2015.So it is clear that bill was sent on the wrong name. After that the complainant did not deposit the bill and the meter was disconnected.But as per the complaint itself in para No5, compromise was affected between the complainant as he deposited Rs.30392/- and new meter was installed. In the month of July,2016 employees of OPs issued bill for Rs.43,340/- which included Rs.17908/- last year charges. On 18.10.2016 the complainant moved an application for changing the location of electricity connection.The complainant  found that meter was disconnected and bill of Rs.17908/- was outstanding after that.
16. As per the OPs there was dispute and the matter was also went to the police. In application, Ex.C4, it was written by Assistant Executive Engineer, Patran to Incharge Police Post, Patran stating that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.30392/- and the matter has been resolved so the complaint be filed.Ex.C2 is bill sent on wrong name.After that the meter was corrected and the bill was sent on the correct name.
17. By going through the pleadings of the complainant, there is no allegations that the OPs charged more than the consumed electricity or have imposed penalty on the complainant. There is only one fault on the part of the OPs that they have issued the bill in the name of Sukhdarshan Singh s/o Darshan Singh. This was a clerical mistake and the matter was resolved and the complainant had deposited the amount and no penalty was ever imposed by the OPs. So there is no ground to grant any compensation, as such the complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.      

ANNOUNCED

DATED:12.1.2021       

                                            Y.S.Matta                      Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                              Member                                President