| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 405 of 18.10.2017 Decided on: 6.1.2021 Raja Ram son of Sh.Dita Ram, resident of Village Gazislar,Samana, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
- Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through its Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Sub Division, Samana, 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.L.S.Sandhu, counsel for complainant. Sh.P.S.Walia, counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Raja Ram (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
- The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is consumer of electricity connection bearing account No.P65BF390132F, installed at his house. It is averred that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste category and thus the connection is under concession by the Punjab Govt.
- It is averred that the OPs issued letter No.1634 dated 18.9.207 to the complainant to pay Rs.44599/-.It is further averred that after receipt of letter, complainant visited office of OPs but nothing was explained by them and they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. It is averred that the complainant is working as labourer and this amount is beyond his capacity. It is averred that the OPs issued wrong and illegal notice to deposit the amount of Rs.44599/- which is too much higher than the normal consumption bills.
- It is averred that the complainant requested the OPs to withdraw the said notice but they did not do so . There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental harassment and agony to the complainant.
- Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the complaint by directing the OPs to withdraw the letter No.1634 dated 18.9.2017 for the deposit of Rs.44599/- and also to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses.
- Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply, it is admitted that the OPs issued letter No.1634 dated 18.9.2017 for the deposit of Rs.44599/- by the complainant.
- It is averred that the meter of the complainant was removed vide M.C.O. No.94395/013 dated 25.7.2016 having been burnt and was checked in the M.E.Lab vide challan No.21 dated 16.9.2016. The complainant was found liable to pay Rs.42499/- not Rs.44599/- as raised vide letter No.1634 dated 18.9.2017 due to difference of reading as recorded in the ledger account .The difference was detected by the audit party of the OPs. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In evidence the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to 7 and closed the evidence.
- The OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Er.Sukhraj Singh alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
- The complainant filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs issued a letter No.1634 dated 18.9.2017 to the complainant for the deposit of the amount of Rs.44599/-.The ld. counsel further argued that this letter is vague as nothing is mentioned in this letter that how they have calculated this amount, in the absence of which the complainant cannot be forced to deposit the said amount and prayed that complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs argued that the account of the complainant was checked and found that there was difference in the reading so the complainant was directed to pay the amount of Rs.44599/- and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove this case, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7.Ex.C1 electricity bill, Ex.C2 is receipt.Ex.C4 is letter dated 18.9.2017.Ex.C5 is application for withdrawal of the letter.
- On behalf of the OPs Er.Sukhraj Singh, A.E. tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA alongwith document,Ex.OP2.
- In the written statement filed by the OPs it is mentioned that the meter of the complainant was removed on 25.7.2016 having been burnt and the complainant was found liable to pay Rs.42499/- due to difference in reading. In the letter, Ex.C4, it is mentioned that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.42499/-. The breakup of the amount is mentioned as SOP 36016, ED 4682 IDF 1801 total Rs.42499/-.This application is totally vague as this application is not accompanied by any document by the OPs to show that how they have calculated this amount and how the complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.42499/-.The complainant belongs to poor scheduled caste category and a poor person cannot pay the amount of Rs.42499/- in one go. The OPs were duty bound to send complete detail of this amount but they did not do so. So on the basis of letter,Ex.C4, no amount can be recovered from the complainant.
- So due to our above discussion complaint stands allowed as letter, Ex.C4 is vague. The OPs are restrained from recovering the amount of Rs.42499/- from the complainant. However the OPs are at liberty to send complete breakup of the new letter to the consumer/complainant alongwith supporting documents to justify that how they have entitled to charge the amount. Parties are to bear their own costs.
ANNOUNCED DATED:6.1.2021 Y.S.Matta Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
