Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/39

Tarlochan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Upkar Singh Adv.

12 Aug 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 39 dated 27.01.2021.                                                Date of decision: 12.08.2022.

 

Tarlochan Singh aged 66 years son of Sh. Joginder Singh, resident of House No.1973/6, Street No.6, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.                                                                                                ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/Managing Director
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Janta Nagar Division (Spl.T), Ludhiana through its AEE.                                                                                                                                           …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he has an electricity connection bearing No.3001947340 installed in his property which is a domestic connection. The complainant has been getting the bills between Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- per month. The complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly without any default or delay. However, in the month of August 2020, the official of the OPs visited and checked the electricity meter on 05.08.2020 following which the complainant received memo No.1045 dated 05.08.2020 whereby the bill of Rs.42,298/- was raised. After the receipt of the said demand, the complainant approached the OPs and asked for the details but no satisfactory reply was given to the complainant. Instead the OPs pressured the complainant to deposit the said amount illegally claimed from him. The OPs further threatened the complainant to disconnect the connection in case the amount was not deposited. The complainant deposited 10% of the amount in question but later on another bill of Rs.38,068/-  was again issued to the complainant which is totally illegal and unjustified. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.42,298/-  and the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.4200/- illegally received from the complainant and further the OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant along with Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

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 complainant has availed remedy before the Dispute Settlement Committee, Ludhiana and the said Committee has already passed an order dated 07.08.2020 against the complainant. If the complainant is not satisfied with the said order passed by the Dispute Settlement Committee, then he had a remedy to file an appeal before the appellate authority and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the case. The OPs have further pleaded that there has been no deficiency of service on their part. According to the OPs, the audit party vide its half margin No.35 dated 07.02.2020 has pointed out that an amount of Rs.42,298/-  was required to be charged from the complainant for difference of units as per store challan No.1272 dated 14.12.2018. The final reading of the meter in question was 6549-1777=4772. Therefore, on the basis of audit party note the amount of Rs.42,298/- has been deducted in the account of the complainant and the same was demanded from him through bill dated 15.05.2020. The complainant approached the dispute settlement committee by depositing 10% amount of Rs.4230/- on 01.06.2020. The committee passed a speaking order on 07.08.2020 in the presence of the complainant after verifying the documents and pursuing the consumption data that the demand was legal and genuine. However, the committee allowed the complainant to pay the amount by way of installments. Following the decision of dispute settlement committee, the OPs issued memo No.1754 dated 29.12.2020 to pay the balance amount of Rs.38,068/-  along with surcharge of Rs.3807/- within a period of 7 days failing which the connection would be disconnected. The demand is legal and valid. 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.                None has been appearing in this case on behalf of the complainant since 06.10.2021 nor any evidence has been formally tendered by the complainant though certain documents have been attached with the complaint.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of  Sh. Surjit Singh, Additional SE of the OPs along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R10 and closed the evidence.

5.                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.                While filing this complaint, the complainant has not disclosed that prior to filing the complaint he had approached Dispute Settlement Committee. However, the copy of order of Dispute Settlement Committee Ex. C1 has been placed on file. It is mentioned in the order Ex. C1 that the meter of the complainant was found to be defective as on 17.11.2018 and it was replaced vide order Ex. R1. At the time of meter was replaced, the reading of the meter was 6549. However, as per the SAP System, the average consumption was recorded at 1770 units and a difference of 4772 units was found the cost of which came to Rs.42,298/-  which was charged. It was further held by the Dispute Settlement Committee that this amount was genuinely recoverable from the complainant and the complainant was ordered to pay the said amount by way of installments. In this regard, further a reference can be made to consumption data Ex. R9 which shows that there was consumption of only 25 units in 59 days in January 2018, 42 units in 64 days reflected in the bill March 2018, then the consumption of 103 units in 59 day in May 2018, 181 units in 72 days in July 2017, 208 units in 52 days in September 2018. As against this, after the meter was replaced, the average consumption has been in the range of 234, 246,451, 875, 802, 595 in the months of January 2019 to November 2019. This shows that the low consumption during the year 2018 was due to the defective meter. Thus, the demand of Rs.42,298/- was justifiably raised. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service.

7.                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.

8.                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:12.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Tarlochan Singh Vs PSPCL                                           CC/21/39

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh. Yash Paul, 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:12.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.