Premium
This is an archive article published on August 23, 2009

SDO to shell out Rs 5,000 for issuing wrong electricity bill

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed the Electricity Sub-Divisional Officer...

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed the Electricity Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO),Operation Division-9,to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for causing mental and physical harassment to a complainant after he was issued a wrong bill.

Gurbaz Singh,Chief Conservator of Forests,Punjab,said he got an electricity meter installed at his residence in Sector 42 in 2004 and received an inflated bill of Rs 11,531 in October 2008 and subsequent bill of Rs 15,867 including previous arrears.

Gurbaz averred that he visited the SDO,Division 9,a number of times for correction of bill but in vain.

Story continues below this ad

Fearing disconnection,he issued a cheque dated February 4,2009,for Rs 11,531 but the Sampark Centre allegedly refused to accept the cheque.

He issued another cheque dated February 16 for Rs 4,336 and thus the amount of both the cheques was Rs 15,867,i.e.,the billed amount.

The Sampark Centre officials,however,refused to accept the payment again,it was alleged.

In their reply,the department submitted that the electricity bill of Rs 11,531 included Rs 5,679 as the current electricity bill from September 10 to November 10,2008 and Rs 5,549 as sundry charges being charged from July 10,2007 to September 3,2008.

Story continues below this ad

It was also stated that the complainant submitted a representation to the department on February 4,2009 for correction of bill which was due on December 19,2008 and payment after the due date was acceptable only through cash or DD as per the rules.

The Electricity department also submitted that the complainant insisted on paying by cheque which is not allowed.

It was pleaded that the complainant’s supply was also not disconnected though he had not made any payment till date.

The forum observed that though the rules are very clear in this respect that the department can charge for a period of six months only and it had adopted an unfair trade practice by charging the consumers wrongly.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement

You May Like

Advertisement