Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/366

Davinder Mohan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

29 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :         366 of 2017

Date of Institution :    13.11.2017

Date of Decision :     29.04.2019

Davinder Mohan aged about 52 years s/o Brij Mohan r/o House No.50, Harindra Nagar, Behind Gurudwara, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Assistant Executive Engineer,  Punjab State Power Corporation, Sub Urban, 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 Dildeep Singh, 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 Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.28,170/- raised vide bill dt 15.09.2017 and

cc no.-366 of 2017

for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for 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 supply electric connection bearing a/c no. 3000387960 with sanctioned load of .94 KW and meter is installed outside his premises. It is submitted that complainant is not residing in said house and only one lamp is installed there. Complainant has been paying all the bills regularly and nothing is due towards him. further submitted that till May, 2016, status of meter was okay but for the last more than one year, status of meter is changing and OPs are sending bills on average basis, but in September, 2017, complainant received bill dated 15.09.2017 for Rs.28,170/- for 243 days which is very excessive. On receiving the same, complainant approached Ops and requested them to withdraw the said bill as nothing is due towards him on account of consumption charges and even no body resides at that place where meter in question is installed. OPs assured to correct the same, but did not do anything needful. Complainant made several requests to Ops to withdraw the demand for excessive charges, but they refused to accede to his requests 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 set aside the demand of Rs.28,170/-raised vide bill dt 15.09.2017 and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony

cc no.-366 of 2017

suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses to complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 14.11.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                      On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has not reached the Forum with clean hands and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is averred that bill is charged as per consumption. It is further averred that complainant never reached regarding any discrepancy in his bills. It is admitted that status of meter was ok till May 2016 and on 1.06.2016, job order for replacement of old meter was initiated and meter of complainant was changed on 20.01.2017 with new reading of zero units and old reading at that time was 12614 units. Bill was generated on 15.09.2017 for Rs.28,170/- and on that day reading of meter was 4310 units and bill was for the period from 20.01.2017 to 15.09.2017. Amount paid by complainant has already been adjusted by them and there is no irregularity in this bill. Amount charged is due towards complainant and he is liable to pay the same and Ops have every right to recover this amount from complainant.

 

cc no.-366 of 2017

Complainant is not entitled to any compensation or relief. It is reiterated that 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 affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 15 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Chunish Jain as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-3 and closed the evidence.

7                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                               Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant  has an electric connection with sanctioned load of .94 KW and complainant does not reside in that house and only one lamp is installed there. Till May, 2016, status of his meter was okay but for the last more than one year, status of meter was changing and OPs used to send bills on average basis. Complainant received bill dated 15.09.2017 for Rs.28,170/-which is very excessive. He requested OPs to withdraw the said bill and submitted that no body resides at his house where meter

cc no.-366 of 2017

is installed. OPs assured to correct the same, but did not do anything needful. Repeated requests made by complainant bore no fruit. All this  amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

9                                    Ld Counsel for Ops argued before the Forum that all the allegations levelled by complainant are wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant never reached regarding any discrepancy in his bills. It is admitted that status of meter was ok till May 2016 and on 1.06.2016, job order for replacement of old meter was initiated and meter of complainant was changed on 20.01.2017 with new reading of zero units and old reading at that time was 12614 units. Bill dated 15.09.2017 was generated for the period from 20.01.2017 to 15.09.2017 for Rs.28,170/- and on that day reading of meter was 4310 units and amount paid by complainant has already been adjusted by them. Amount charged is due towards complainant and they have right to recover the same. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                     From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that he is having electric connection at his house where no one resides and only one lamp is installed there. Complainant received excessive bill dated 15.09.2017 for Rs.28,170/-for that

cc no.-366 of 2017

connection. Amount of Rs.28,170/-charged by OPs in impugned bill dated 15.09.2017 is highly excessive and despite repeated requests, OPs did not correct the bill and have failed to redress his grievance. Complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to withdraw the bill dated 15.09.2017. On the contrary, plea taken by OPs is that meter of complainant was changed and new meter was installed. At the time of installing new meter on 20.01.2017, new meter had zero reading and reading of old meter was12614 units and this bill is for the period from 20.01.2017 to 15.09.2017 for 4310 units. Rs.28,170/- have been charged as per rules and this amount  is due towards complainant and he is liable to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11                                                Now, it is admitted case of the parties that complainant is consumer of OPs having electric connection in question. It is further admitted that Ops issued bill dated 15.09.2017 for Rs.28,170/-from 20.01.2017 to 15.09.2017 for 4310 units. Ld counsel for complainant has brought our attention towards documents Ex C-3 to Ex C-13 which are copies of bills issued by OPs for the period from April, 2016 to August 2017 and copies of receipts for the payment made by complainant on account of consumption charges. from these documents it is clear that bills were being issued to complainant on average basis and it is also specified on the bills that sanctioned load for meter in question is only .94 kw and is less than one kilowatt. OPs themselves admitted in their written mentioned that sanctioned load at

cc no.-366 of 2017

that place is only .94 units and no one resides at that place. Complainant has made payment for the entire period and nothing is due towards him. Plea taken by OPs that on 20.01.2017, the meter was changed with initial reading zero and now they issued bill from 20.01.2017 to 15.09.2017 for actual consumption of 4310 units, whereas the stand of complainant is that in the house in  question no one is residing and only one lamp is installed and there is no such huge consumption. Documents Ex C-3, Ex  C-4, Ex C-6 to Ex C-8 and documents Ex C-10, 12 and Ex C-13 also show  record of consumption of complainant from 4/16 to 8/17. Careful perusal of these documents reveal that average power consumption reading of meter of complainant is between 36 units to 40 units, but reading of units 4311 recorded in bill dated 15.09.2017 is highly excessive and by exceeding the maximum average consumption reading, it reaches to 4311 units, which does not seem appropriate. So, it is cleared that the meter in question was not recording correct consumption. As per the rules and regulations if there is any defect in the electric meter and not recording consumption than the consumption shall be charged on the basis of average of last year.  The relevant regulations of PSPCL given in section 21.04 (g) (ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 vide notification no.PSERC/Secy/Regu.31 dated June, 29, 2007 are reproduced as hereunder:

 “The account of a consumer will be overhauled for the period a defective meter remained at site and for the period of direct supply, on

cc no.-366 of 2017

the basis of energy consumption of the corresponding period of the previous year after calibrating for the changes in load, if any. In case the average consumption for the corresponding period of previous year is not available then, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicted in para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous/succeeding year.

12                        In the instant case, the average consumption for the corresponding period of the previous year must be available with the Ops, so in view of aforementioned section 21.4 (g) ( ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicated in Para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of previous year.

13                                           In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and the demand raised by Ops from complainant vide bills  dated 15.09.2017 is set aside and quashed. However, the Ops are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period by overhauling his account on the basis of average consumption in the corresponding period of the  previous year. Ops are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated

cc no.-366 of 2017

14.11.2017 passed by this Forum in subsequent bills. 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 : 29.04.2019

 

                              (Param Pal Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

   Member                                  President