HARMINDER KAUR Vs. S D O ELCY/OPS DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 6.10.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant) was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that, the complainant is a consumer of the Electricity Department against the electric connection bearing a/c No.307/3501/025500W. She had been paying the electricity bills regularly, without any default. According to the complainant, the OP imposed a sum of Rs.250/ - as penalty on account of dishonour of cheque, against the bill dated 16.1.2009 for the period from 19.10.2008 to 19.12.2008 instead of charging the bill amount and surcharge. It was further stated that the OP again charged a sum of Rs.250/ - as sundry charges against the bill dated 16.7.2009 for the period from 19.4.2009 to 19.6.2009 on account of dishonour of cheque. It was further stated by her, that the OP, thus, illegally charged a sum of Rs.500/ - from the complainant, which had not been adjusted, against future bills, despite her requests, in this regard. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by the complainant, praying that the OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.500/ - alongwith interest as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

(3.) IN the reply, the OP (now respondent) admitted that the premises in question was having 3 electricity connections. It was also admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the Electricity Department. The cheque dated 29.1.2009 for Rs.2,412/ - was deposited by the complainant in respect of bill for the period 19.10.2008 to 19.12.2008. This cheque was dishonoured. Ultimately the disconnection order No.73/538 dated 10.6.2009 was issued and thereafter the complainant made the payment of Rs.2815/ -, which included the electricity charges of Rs.2338/ -, surcharge of Rs.227/ - and RCO fee of Rs.250/ -. It was further stated that the surcharge and reconnection fee had been rightly charged as per the Rules. It was further stated that since the amount deposited by the complainant in total was Rs.2815/ -, and thus to show the bifurcation, amount of RCO fee was shown in the bill of the consumer issued on 16.7.2009 which was credited to her (complainant) in the next bill. It was further stated that the computer of the OP had picked up the surcharge for two bills for the period from 19.2.2009 to 19.4.2009 and from 19.4.2009 to 19.6.2009 amounting to Rs.234/ - and Rs.254/ -, totalling Rs.488/ -. It was further stated that this amount was adjusted in the subsequent bills dated 5.10.2009 and 5.12.2009 respectively of the consumer. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OP/respondent.