Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/57

Chamkaur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab state Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rohit Kumar

11 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 57 dated 04.02.2021.                                                Date of decision: 11.08.2022.

 

Chamkaur Singh aged 58 years son of Sh. Natha Singh, r/o. Village Dehlon, Tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana. M. No.70096-39349.                                                                                                                                     ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman.
2. XEN, Lalton Kalan Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Lalton Kalan, Tehsil and Distt. Ludhiana.                                   
3. Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub-Division Sarinh (Alamgir), Tehsihl and Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                        …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OPs                          :         Sh. G.S. Pahwa, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is the consumer of the OPs as a domestic electric connection has been installed at his residence situated at village Dehlon, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The OPs issued bill dated 28.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.2,85,130/-. The complainant never committed any default in payment of the bills and has been paying the same regularly. After the receipt of the bill dated 28.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.2,85,130/-, the complainant requested the OPs to send a bill as per the actual consumption but no heed was paid to his request. In the meantime, another bill dated 05.01.2021 was issued for a sum of Rs.3,01,650/-. As a matter of fact, the reading of consumption was not correctly recorded. The OPs have adjusted an amount  of Rs.49,410/-  only whereas the complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from May 2019 to October 2020 against various bills. The OPs have issued various bills from 07.05.2019 to 05.10.2020 showing the reading of the meter on 07.05.2020 as 24078 units and 37923 on 05.10.2020. The complainant has been paying all the bills issued from May 2019 onwards till 28.10.2020. The meter is also installed outside the residence of the complainant in the pillar box. The OPs are now alleging that the reading was not correctly recorded from time to time and on this account, there has been arrears whereas in the bill dated 28.10.2020, the reading of the meter has been shown at 23550 and the status of the meter is also mentioned as OK. The OPs are entitled to receive the payment from the complainant for the difference of units 37750 and 24078 which comes to 14000 units only. The complainant has already paid all the bills dated 28.10.2020 and arrears of only Rs.2408/- were stated to be pending in the bill dated 28.10.2020. The complainant is ready to pay all the charges but his request was turned down and instead the OPs raised a demand of Rs.3,01,650/- which is illegal and arbitrary. In the end, it has been requested that the illegal demand of Rs.2,85,130/-  raised vide bill dated 28.10.2020 and Rs.3,01,650/- raised vide bill dated 05.01.2021 be quashed and the OPs be made to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. According to the OPs, the complainant has been regularly consuming the electricity but he has not been making the full payment of the actual energy consumed by him. The bills which were sent to the complainant were either on the basis of N-Code and I-Code. N-Code means no reading was taken and I-Code means the reading is either less or very exorbitant. Such bills were sent on average basis. Late on, when the correct reading was taken, the bill dated 28.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.2,85,130/- for the period from 08.07.2019 to28.10.2020 was sent with old reading zero and the new reading 37550  and an amount of Rs.49,410/- had been deposited by the complainant during this period was adjusted from the total bill to the tune of Rs.2,85,130/-. In the next bill, the reading came from 37550 to 37923 and on the basis thereof, the bill for Rs.3,01,650/- with previous bill charges of Rs.2,98,636/-  was issued. The entire amount relates to actual consumption charges of electricity used by the complainant and the electric connection was rightly issued due to non-payment of the charges. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                The complainant has not formally tendered any evidence. However, at the time of filing the complaint, the complainant submitted  his affidavit along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C11

4.                On the other hand, the OPs have also not formally tendered any affidavit. However, at the time of filing written statement, the OPs submitted affidavit of Er. Jaswinder Singh, Addl. S.E. along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex.12.

5.                None has been appearing in this case on behalf of the complainant since 17.02.2022. We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs and have also gone through records. We proceed to decide the case on merits.

6.                By way of this complaint, the complainant has challenged the issuance of bills dated 28.10.2020 for Rs.2,85,130/- and the subsequent bill dated 05.01.2021 for a sum of Rs.3,01,650/-. The complainant has claimed that the reading of the consumption was no correctly recorded and while issuing the impugned bills only an amount of Rs.49,410/- has been adjusted whereas he has paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- between May 2020 to October 2020.

7.                On the other hand, the OPs have examined Er. Jaswinder Singh, Addl. S.E. who in his affidavit has stated that the complainant has been consuming the electricity but he has not been making the full payment of the bills which were sent to him either on the basis of N-Code (reading not taken) or on the basis of I-Code (reading less/excessive) and, therefore, some of the bills were paid on average basis later on when the correct reading was taken, the bill Ex. R9 dated 28.10.2020 for a sum of Rs.2,85,130/- was issued for the period from 08.07.2019 to 28.10.2020 and an amount of Rs.49,410/-  already deposited by the complainant during this period was also adjusted. As this amount was not paid, the subsequent bill Ex. R10 dated 05.01.2021 was issued for Rs.3,01,650/-. It has also been claimed by Er. Jaswinder Singh, Addl. S.E. that the bills have been raised on the basis of actual consumption. Apart from this, it is not the case of the complainant that the meter installed outside his house has been defective or that the same has not been recording the consumption correctly. In this regard, the complainant has also not filed any application with the OPs at any point of time challenging the correctness of the meter. Thus, it is evident that the complainant has consumed electricity as shown in the bill Ex. R9 and Ex. R10 and the bills issued earlier were not on the basis of the actual consumption. Moreover, when the complainant has not challenged the accuracy of the meter and the bills have been raised on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the meter, the complainant cannot be heard harping that the OPs have wrongly issued bills showing excessive consumption. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency on the part of the OPs as it does not stand proved on record that the impugned bills Ex. R9 and Ex. R10 are not based on actual consumption or are excessive in nature. 

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Chamkaur Singh Vs PSPCL                                           CC/21/57   

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh. G.S. Pahwa, Advocate for the OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:11.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.