This story is from December 9, 2009

Repay wrongly charged bill: Consumer forum to Torrent SEC

Torrent Power SEC Company Ltd has been asked to repay Rs 78,000 with a 9 per cent annual interest that the company's officials had wrongly collected from a citizen. The order was passed by Surat district consumer disputes redressal forum on Tuesday.
Repay wrongly charged bill: Consumer forum to Torrent SEC
SURAT: Torrent Power SEC Company Ltd has been asked to repay Rs 78,000 with a 9 per cent annual interest that the company's officials had wrongly collected from a citizen. The order was passed by Surat district consumer disputes redressal forum on Tuesday.
As per the case details, Rajendrakumar Pyarelal Sharma, partner of Shreenath Travels at Umarwada had filed a complaint with the Surat district consumer disputes redressal forum in 2006 against the Torrent power.
1x1 polls
Sharma alleged that the company had slapped a false bill of Rs 78,000 on him accusing him of damaging the underground electricity line during the digging exercise.
In his complaint, Sharma stated that some technicians from the company had dug a patch of land outside his office premises on June 13, 2006. The diggers damaged an underground electricity line. They left after repairing the fault.
Later, some Torrent Power engineers visited his office, claiming that the complainant was responsible for the damage and asked him to pay for the damages.
When the complainant refused to pay, the company severed his power connection without giving any prior notice. The complainant, who was under severe duress, finally agreed to pay just to get his power connection back.
Giving the order in favour of the complainant on Tuesday, president of dispute redressal forum VK Mali stated that the company is also liable to pay Rs 7,000 for the mental and physical harassment caused to Sharma within 30 days of passing the order.
Senior consumer lawyer Preeti Joshi, who appeared for the plainant, said, "The underground electricity lines of the company were damaged due to their own mistake. It was only because of the fact that the digging was done on the premises of the complainant that he was charged."
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA