Punjab

StateCommission

A/93/2018

Chaman Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Manu Loona

07 Aug 2018

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

 

                   First Appeal No.93 of 2018

 

                                                          Date of Institution    : 20.02.2018         

                                                          Order Reserved on  :03.08.2018         

                                                          Date of Decision     : 07.08.2018

 

Chaman Lal aged about 77 years, son of Sh. Sardari Lal, resident of House No. 436, Bank Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, having Domestic Connection No.Y62CB520090M Mobile No.98728-00042.

 

                                                                       Appellant/Complainant                 

        Versus

 

 

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Assistance Executive Engineer, City Sub Division, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

 

 

                                                              Respondent/Opposite party

 

First Appeal against order dated 05.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Sri Muktsar Shaib.

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

            Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:-

 

          For the appellant         :  None

          For the respondent      :  Sh. J.P.S Sandhu, Advocate

. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

                    Challenge in this appeal by appellant is to order dated 05.09.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib, dismissing the complaint of the appellant. The appellant of this appeal is complainant before District Forum and respondent of this appeal is opposite party therein and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.

2.                The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against OP on the averments that he has been using electricity connection provided by OP regularly by paying electricity bills without any default and as such is consumer of OP and amount of Rs.1,36,594/- was wrongly received by OP in the year 2012 from the account of the complainant as sundry charges without any valid reason. The complainant visited the OP for withdrawing the above said illegal demand in the year 2012, but to no effect. OP received the  amount of consumption from the complainant, after making necessary correction in each and every bill since the year 2012 and complainant with an apprehension of disconnection of his electricity connection, used to pay these amounts to OP under protest. OP never withdrew the excess mentioned amount in the  bill of 2012, but made lame excuses each and every time only. The concerned employee of OP told the  complainant that amount of some other person namely Varinder Kumar has been calculated in the account of the complainant, although the same is not concerned with complainant in any manner. The complainant moved an application before Executive Engineer PSPCL Ltd Sri Muktsar Sahib on 16.03.2016 for correction in his electricity bill and also brought to notice of OP regarding wrong entry of the amount of some other connection no. 52614, as added in the account of the complainant. This application was received, vide endorsement no. 3215 dated 21.03.2016 by OP, but to no effect. Subsequently, the bill amount was paid as Rs.35,000/- which  was received by OP on 20.05.2016 from the complainant. No enquiry was made by OP in this matter and complainant was never called to make the complaint regarding charges. The complainant visited the office of OP for withdrawal of illegal demand of bill as raised,  but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed complaint against OP with the prayer that OP be directed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.1,77,500/-  raised by OP, vide bill dated 20.09.2016 from the complainant. In case,  OP succeeded in recovering any amount in question, the same be forfeited with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of receipt of amount till its realization. OP be restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection bearing A/c no. Y62CB520090M (DS), besides payment of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.

3.                Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complaint is barred by time. The complainant has not paid bill regularly from the month January 2013 till date. The amount raised by OP is amount of consumption charges of bill only. OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint by contending that bill amount is of actual consumption under rules only.

4.                The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 along with copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-32 and closed the evidence.  As against it; OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Er. Kuldeep Sharma SDO City Sub Division Sri Muktsar Sahib as Ex.OP-1 along with copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-15 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Consumer Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 05.09.2017. Aggrieved by above order of the District Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib, complainant now appellant, has carried this appeal against the same.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the respondent as none has appeared on behalf of appellant during arguments of the appeal and we have also examined the record of the case.

6.                We find that District Forum has not dealt with this point in detail, as to whether the amount of consumption of bill of Varinder Kumar has been actually added in the  account of the complainant by OP. The complainant has raised this specific allegation in para no. 4 of the complaint to this effect. The complainant also swore his affidavit on the record swearing this allegation as well. The complainant is aggrieved by amount of bill raised by OP. On the other hand, OP stated that this amount is of consumption charges of electricity of complainant only. The application of complainant, vide endorsement no. 3215 dated 21.03.2016, has been pending with OP, but it has not been disposed of by OP as yet. OP issued bill Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-25 to complainant. The application put in by complainant is Ex.C-26 to the effect that amount pertaining to the account of Varinder Kumar has been wrongly added in his account by OP.  This not a disputed fact that this application, which was received by Superintendent Engineer of OP, vide endorsement no. 3215 dated 21.03.2016, but no order was passed by OP on this application as yet. It is obligation of OP to decide this application, as to whether disputed amount of Varinder Kumar has been added in the account of complainant in this case in the consumption account of complainant or not in the impugned bills. The District Forum left over this matter, which is vital point for adjudication in this case and illegality has been committed by District Forum in not giving weightage to this application and straightway recording the finding that amounts raised by OP are of consumption charges of electricity only. The finding of District Forum nowhere records as to whether the disputed amount of Varinder Kumar's account forms part of this disputed bill or not.

7.                As a result of our above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order of District Forum Sri Muktsar Sahib in dismissing the complaint of complainant and direct OP now respondent in this appeal to decide this application of the complainant by passing a speaking order thereon, as to whether the amount of account of Varinder Kumar has been added in the bill amount of the complainant or not or whether it has been shown as sundry charges initially in the account of the complainant or not? OP is directed to decide this  application of complainant by passing a speaking order thereon deciding the point whether the amount of the account of Varinder Kumar has been added in the electricity bill of complainant or not? OP shall not recover the disputed amount from the complainant till final disposal of the application moved by the complainant nor shall OP disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant on above premise till disposal of the above application after giving an opportunity of being heard to complainant by OP.

8.                Arguments in this appeal were heard on 03.08.2018 and the order was reserved. Certified copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

9.                The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                    

 

                                                                   (SURINDER PAL KAUR)           

                                                                        MEMBER

August 7, 2018                                                          

(ravi)