Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/100

Sukhchain Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

20 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :          100 of 2019

                                                   Date of Institution :     11.04.2019

   Date of Decision :       20.01.2020

Sukhchain Singh aged about 57 years son of Baldev Singh son of Nar Singh r/o New Cantt Road, Street No. 4, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, City Sub Division, Faridkot.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., the Mall, Patiala through its Chairman Cum Managing Director.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                                

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:  Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant ,

    Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to them to withdraw the demand of Rs.1,07,640/-raised vide bill dated 4.03.2019 and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for  

 

cc  no.100 of  2019

harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. 30000437061 installed outside his premises and he has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him on account of consumption charges. It is submitted that till May, 2016, status of his meter was okay but in bill dt 31.08.2016, it was shown as ‘F’ and he brought this fact to the notice of OPs. He received bill dated 8.03.2017 for Rs.52,610/- for 730 days, which was very excessive. On receiving this complainant approached Ops and on his asking about this, OPs told him that there was some fault in system and asked him to deposit charges as per consumption and also assured to sent the bill as per consumption, but next month they again sent inflated bill. in October, 2018, meter of complainant was burnt and it was replaced by OPs in November, 2018, but he again received inflated bill for RS.1,06,200/-and when complainant approached them, they got deposited bill as per consumption and felt sorry for this, but again in January, 2019, OPs sent bill for Rs.1,03,760/- and this time also they got deposited current consumption charges and assured to correct the bill. It is further submitted that now, OPs have again issued him bill dated 4.03.2019 for Rs. 1,07,670/-which is highly inflated and excessive. On receiving the same, complainant approached OPs and made several requests to correct the said bill and to get deposited current

cc  no.100 of  2019

consumption charges, but all in vain. OPs did not the pay any heed to genuine requests made by complainant, rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the impugned demand raised vide bill dated 4.03.2019 and also prayed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                        Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 15.04.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                           OPs filed written statement through counsel wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that bills issued for the months of 3/15, 5/15, 7/15, 9/15, 11/15, 1/16, 3/16, 5/16, 7/16, 9/16, 11/16, 1/17, 3/17, 5/17, 7/17 have already been deleted and fresh bill for 6.09.2017 for Rs.48,850/-as current bill and Rs.52,665/-+Rs.384/-as arrears was issued for 179 days. The bill was again issued on 5.11.2017 for Rs.70,020/-in which Rs.3,727/-was current consumption charges, Rs.15,348/- and Rs.50,942/-as arrears and in this bill refund adjustment of Rs.52,665/-was

cc  no.100 of  2019

given. It is admitted that meter of complainant was burnt and new meter was installed having initial reading of 00002. Bill dated 31.10.2018 for Rs.1,06,230/-was issued on average basis due to burnt meter. Bill issued in the month of January, 2019 for Rs.1,03,670/-was a machine bill out which complainant deposited current consumption charges of Rs.1100/-and did not deposit the arrear amount. Similarly, for the bill issued in March, 2019 for Rs.1,07,670/-, complainant deposited Rs.800/-of current consumption and failed to deposit the arrear amount. As meter of complainant was burnt therefore, bills were being issued to him on average basis.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                   Parties were given proper opportunities  to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 21 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-11 and closed the evidence.

7                                          We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

cc  no.100 of  2019

8                                              From the careful perusal of record and evidence and pleadings placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that OPs have been issuing him bill with excessive consumption charges. Complainant pleaded before the Forum that till May, 2016, status of his meter was okay but in bill dt 31.08.2016, it was shown as ‘F’. Bill dated 8.03.2017 issued to him for Rs.52,610/- for 730 days was very excessive. He approached Ops and on his asking about said bill, OPs told him that there was some fault in system and asked him to deposit charges as per consumption and assured to send the bill as per consumption, but they again sent inflated bill. In October, 2018,  his meter was burnt and it was replaced by OPs in November, 2018, but he again received inflated bill for Rs.1,06,200/-. OPs got deposited bill as per consumption and felt sorry for this, but they kept sending excessive bills. In January, 2019, OPs sent excessive bill for Rs.1,03,760/-  and then again issued excessive bill dated 4.03.2019 for Rs. 1,07,670/-. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs have not corrected impugned bill which is very excessive for Rs.1,07,670/-.Main contention of complainant is that though no amount on account of consumption charges is due towards him, but raising of huge demand through inflated bills is illegal and it amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, OPs admitted before the Forum that bills issued for the months of 3/15, 5/15, 7/15, 9/15, 11/15, 1/16, 3/16, 5/16, 7/16, 9/16, 11/16, 1/17, 3/17,

cc  no.100 of  2019

5/17, 7/17 have already been deleted and fresh bill for 6.09.2017 for Rs.48,850/-as current bill and Rs.52,665/-+Rs.384/-as arrears was issued for 179 days. The bill was again issued on 5.11.2017 for Rs.70,020/-in which Rs.3727/-was current consumption charges, Rs.15,348/- and Rs.50,942/-as arrears and in this bill refund adjustment of Rs.52,665/-was given. Meter of complainant was burnt and new meter was installed at reading of 00002. Bill dated 31.10.2018 for Rs.1,06,230/-was issued on average basis due to burnt meter. It is also admitted that bill issued in January, 2019 for Rs.1,03,670/- and issued in March 2019, for Rs.1,07,670 was a machine bill out which complainant deposited current consumption charges of Rs.1100/- and Rs.800/- respectively. Arrears have not been paid by him. there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                       To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant has placed on record document Ex C-2 copy of bill dated 26.05.2016 that reveals the status of his meter as okay, but in bill issued for month of September, 2016, Ex C-3 status of meter is shown as ‘F’. Ex C-5 to Ex  C-14 are copies of bills for the months from March, 2017 to September, 2018 that clearly show that huge amount is charged to complainant on account of consumption charges. Ex C-16 Job Order itself speaks that meter of complainant was changed on 16.10.2018 and bill dated 31.10.2018 Ex C-17 is issued for Rs.1,06,200/-. Ex C-18 bill dated 11.01.2019 for Rs.1,03,760/- and Ex C-20 bill dated 4.03.2019 for

cc  no.100 of  2019

Rs.1,07,670/- also narrate the similar story. All these bill show huge amount charged as arrears. It is admitted case of the parties that complainant is their consumer and it is also admitted by OPs in their written reply that they have deleted bills for the months from 3/15, 5/15, 7/15, 9/15, 11/15, 1/16, 3/16, 5/16, 7/16, 9/16, 11/16, 1/17, 3/17, 5/17, 7/17.

10                                     It is observed that OPs have failed to explain that why they deleted the bills for the months of 3/15, 5/15, 7/15, 9/15, 11/15, 1/16, 3/16, 5/16, 7/16, 9/16, 11/16, 1/17, 3/17, 5/17, 7/17. It is not denied that OPs regularly sent bills to complainant for above said period and complainant duly paid these bills to OPs regularly. Further, they have not produced any evidence to prove that how they issued bills to complainant on 6.09.2017 for 179 days for Rs.48,850/- as current bill, Rs.52,665/- plus Rs.384/- as arrears and thus, for total sum of Rs.1,01,900/-. They have not explained how they calculated this amount. Whether they adjusted the amount already paid by the complainant to them as consumption of complainant in prior bills and how they charged amount of about Rs.53,000/-as arrears. Ops themselves admitted that complainant regularly deposited current consumption charges with them and there is nothing due on account of consumption charges towards him.

11                                            In the light of above discussion and arguments advanced by parties, it is made out that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in charging excessive amount on average basis.

cc  no.100 of  2019

Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed and the demand raised by Ops from complainant vide bill dated 6.09.2017, is set aside and quashed. Ops are directed to overhaul the account of complainant. However, OPs are at liberty to charge for the period from July, 2017 to September, 2017 on the basis of average consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year and also to adjust the amount if any paid by complainant for consumption during above said period. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 20.01.2020

 

(Parampal Kaur)                          (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                            President