Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/24

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Gourav Sharma adv

27 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 24 of 10.01.2018

   Date of Decision       :   27.06.2019

Kuldeep Singh aged about 60 years son of Sh.Ajmer Singh resident of House No.C-26, G.S.B.Apartments Manakwal, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Model Town Division (Special), Ludhiana through its XEN/SDO.

…Opposite party

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.A.S.Walia, Advocate

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT 

1.                Complainant, a driver by profession, is holding electric connection bearing contract No.3001911801, consumer No.W31DF-240501X,  lying    installed in his residential house. This electric connection has sanctioned load of 0.960 KW. There are only three points in the small house of the complainant. Complainant visits his house only for 6-7 days in a month and average consumption of units is 20-21 units per bi-month. Complainant approached OP several times to correct the bills dated 18.9.2017 for amount of Rs.3370/-; bill dated 18.7.2017 for amount of Rs.1010/- and bill dated 17.05.2017 for amount of Rs.520/, but OP has not bothered to consider the claim of complainant. It is claimed that highly exaggerated amount has been charged from the complainant without any reasonable cause, despite the fact that complainant had been paying  the bills regularly. Even aforesaid bills had been paid by the complainant under protest, because OP refused to correct the bills. By claiming deficiency in service on the part of Op, prayer made for directing Op to refund the excess received amount of Rs.4500/- approximately. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.1 lac and litigation expenses of Rs.11000/- more claimed with interest @12% per annum.

2.                In written reply submitted by OP, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is false and frivolous and complainant is estopped from challenging the bills because he has already deposited the bill amounts without protest. Concealment of material facts by the complainant also alleged by claiming that complainant is resident of GSB Flat, situated at Manakwal. Now SB Resident Welfare Committee Registered of GSB Apartments, Manakwal, Ludhiana has started managing the affairs of residents occupying the flats. Sum of Rs.3,17,130/- was outstanding against the water tubewell connection bearing A/c No.GT-31-0039 lying installed in the said GSB Colony for supply of water to the residents of flats of this colony. Application in writing was submitted by Director of GSB Housing and Finance Limited namely Sh.Gurcharan Singh Bansal to XEN, Model Town Division Special with request that defaulting amount of Rs.3,17,130/- as outstanding against the tubewell connection referred above, be charged from the residents of flats because they are using the water from this tubewell connection. This charging of proportionate basis was requested by claiming that said Director Sh.Gurcharan Singh Bansal has already sold the flats many years ago and that he has no connection with the flats. As residents of flats have already constituted Welfare Committee in the name of SB residents B-10, GSB Apartments, Manakwal, Ludhiana and as such, representative of said society prayed for charging of defaulting amount on proportionate basis from 84 residents. It was after proportionate description of due amount that same was recovered from complainant. Allegations regarding excess charging of amount through bills dated 17.5.2017; 18.7.2017 and 18.9.2017 are denied. Admittedly, complainant is using the electric supply from the electric connection regularly. Allegations levelled in the complaint are false and frivolous and nothing is payable by the complaint. Other averments of the complaint denied.

3.                  Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C31 (except Ex.C3) and thereafter, he along with his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, Counsel for Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.M.P.Singh, Additional S.E. along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                The disputed bills along with receipts except one are produced on record as Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. Bone of contention remains as to whether amounts of bills dated 17.5.2017, 18.7.2017 and 18.9.2017 was deposited by the complainant with Op under protest or without protest. However, no written material produced on record by any of the parties in that respect. Complainant has admitted having deposited the above referred amounts and as such, it was for the complainant to establish as to in what way he raised the protest while depositing the amount of bills in question. Manner of raising protest not disclosed by the complainant and as such in view of further material available on record, it has to be held that amounts were deposited by the complainant without protest.

7.                After taking us through receipts, copies of which are produced on record as Ex.C7 to Ex.C13, it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that maintenance charges for period from 1.1.2009 to December 2012 were regularly paid by the complainant to GSB Apartments Society. Payment of maintenance charges stands on different footing, than that of payment of bills of electricity consumption. However, perusal of receipts Ex.C14 to Ex.C31 discloses as if complainant had been paying the water and sewerage charges regularly from 16.11.2013 to 19.11.2018. As water and sewerage charges paid continuously by the complainant and as such, it is vehemently contended by counsel for complainant that complainant not liable for paying any amount of water and sewerage charges to anybody. Present is not a case of payment of water and sewerage charges by inhabitants of colony, in which, the complainant is residing, but present is a case, in which, payment of amounts in question made by the complainant because of representation submitted by SB Residents Welfare Committee (Regd.) (Ex.R7) to XEN, Model Town, Ludhiana, through which, they prayed OP to proportionately recover  the claimable amount of Rs.3,17,130/-, as the bill amount payable on account of use of electricity for running a tubewell meant for supplying water to all the inhabitants of locality. Before that application Ex.R2 was submitted by Mr.Gurcharan Singh Bansal, President of Bansal Builders of GSB Housing and Finance Limited with XEN, PSPCL, Model Town, Ludhiana for claiming that said GSB ceased to have any connection with supply of water to inhabitants of the locality because he has sold the flats and now GSB Residents Welfare Committee has been constituted. Through application Ex.R2, request was made to XEN, PSPCL, Model Town, Ludhiana to recover the outstanding amount of Rs.3,17,130/- of bill of consumption of electricity for running of tubewell for supply of water to inhabitants of flats. As after the sale of flats by GSB Housing and Finance Limited, responsibility of supply of water through tubewell connection in question remained of GSB Residents Welfare Committee and that is why this committee submitted application Ex.R7 for proportionate distribution of amount of Rs.3,17,130/- against the consumed units. Upon this request of authorized representatives of GSB Residents Welfare Committee, copy of which is placed on record as Ex.R7, amount was apportioned amongst the residents of flats as reflected by Ex.R3 to Ex.R6 and thereafter, amount in question was deposited by the complainant and as such, certainly present is a case, in which, complainant deposited amounts of bills in question because of apportionment of outstanding amount of Rs.3,17,130/- against the residents of flats. As that apportionment was done at the asking of authorized representatives of GSB Residents Welfare Committee, presently managing the affairs of colony, in which, house of complainant is situate and as such, OP has not done any illegal or whimsical or arbitrary act by charging amounts in question. Being so, neither OP adopted any unfair trade practice and nor OP rendered any deficient service to the complainant by charging of amounts in question. Rather, amounts in question were charged from the complainant along with other inhabitants of the locality, so that there may be regular and smooth supply of water from common tubewell connection installed in the colony for supply of water to all the inhabitants of the colony. Act of charging of amounts in question as such was done by OP not at its own, but for the general common interest of the inhabitants of colony at the instance and asking of GSB Residents Welfare Committee and as such in view of reasonable apportionment being done, no case of deficiency in service or of adoption of unfair trade practice is made out against OP. Being so, present complaint merits dismissal.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Jyotsna Thatai)                                               (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:27.06.2019

Gurpreet Sharma.