Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/46

AJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASSISTANTE EXECUTIVE PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Joginder Singh

17 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        46

Date of Institution :  14.02.2017

Date of Decision :    17.07.2017

Ajay Kumar aged about 39 years s/o Sh Krishan Kumar r/o  Near Railway Station, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., City Sub Division, Faridkot through its Assistant Executive Engineer, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, The Mall Road, Patiala through its Chairman cum Managing Director.    

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:  Sh Joginder Singh, 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 Ops to correct the bill  dated 8.02.2017 for Rs.20,190/- and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having NRS electric connection bearing a/c no 3000395454. It is submitted that connection in question was in the name of his father Shree Krishan Kumar at his shop and after the death of his father, complainant has been using the same and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill for the period from 4.10.2016 to 3.12.2016 for Rs.410/-  for 20 units and complainant duly paid the same within time and then, he received bill  for the period from 3.12.2016 to 8.02.2017 for 2440 units, which is not possible. The amount charged is very excessive and illegal. On receiving the same, complainant approached the Ops and requested them to correct the bill, but they flatly refused to correct the bill, rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service 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 demand of sundry charges and prayed for 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 21.02.2017, 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 been using the said electric connection for commercial purpose and therefore, he does not fall under the definition of consumer. It is averred that connection in question is released in the name of Krishan Kumar and no information regarding his death or for change of name is ever given by complainant to OPs. Complainant has neither submitted the A & A form nor the death certificate of his deceased father. He has not complied with the mandatory provision of rules and regulations of PSPCL. Moreover, complainant has not entered into bilateral contract and has not completed the requisite formalities for using the connection in question as beneficiary. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that connection in question is released under NRS category and he is not their consumer. It is admitted that bill dated 3.12.2016 was issued to complainant for Rs.410/- and bill in question is issued for 2440 units for Rs.20,529/- and asserted that meter of complainant is running properly with status okay and is recording correct consumption. Reading on 9.08.2016 was 5620/- units and reading on 4.10.2016 was 5710 units and new reading on 3.12.2016 was 5730 units and then, reading on 8.02.2017 was recorded as 8170 units. If complainant is not satisfied with the reading of his meter he can get it checked from M E Lab Moga on payment of prescribed fee. It is asserted that it appears that in connivance with Meter Reader, reading of meter is less recorded. Bill in question is issued to complainant on the basis of reading of consumption recorded by his meter and if he has any doubt about its accuracy, he is at liberty to get it checked. 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 affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2  and C-3 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-4 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 is having NRS electric connection bearing a/c no 3000395454. It is submitted that connection in question was in the name of his father Shree Krishan Kumar at his shop and after the death of his father, complainant has been using the same and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill for the period from 4.10.2016 to 3.12.2016 for Rs.410/- for 20 units and complainant duly paid the same within time and then, he received bill for the period from 3.12.2016 to 8.02.2017 for 2440 units, which is not possible. The amount charged is very excessive and illegal. On receiving the same, complainant approached the Ops and requested them to correct the bill, but they flatly refused to correct the bill, rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

9                          Ld Counsel for Ops argued before the Forum that complainant has been using the said electric connection for commercial purpose and therefore, he does not fall under the definition of consumer. Connection is released in the name of Krishan Kumar and no information regarding his death or for change of name is ever given by complainant to OPs. Complainant has neither submitted the A & A form nor the death certificate of his deceased father. He has not complied with the mandatory provision of regulations of PSPCL and complainant has not entered into bilateral contract and has not completed the requisite formalities for using the connection in question as beneficiary. OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that connection in question is released under NRS category and he is not their consumer. It is admitted that bill dated 3.12.2016 was issued for Rs.410/- and bill in question is issued for 2440 units for Rs.20,529/- and asserted that meter of complainant is running properly with status okay and is recording correct consumption. Reading on 9.08.2016 was 5620/- units and reading on 4.10.2016 was 5710 units and new reading on 3.12.2016 was 5730 units and then, reading on 8.02.2017 was recorded as 8170 units. If complainant is not satisfied with the reading of his meter he can get it checked from M E Lab Moga on payment of prescribed fee. It is asserted that it appears that in connivance with Meter Reader, reading of meter is less recorded. Bill in question is issued to complainant on the basis consumption recorded by his meter. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

10                          So far as objection of OPs that connection in question stands issued in the name of Krishan Kumar and no application for change of name of connection in question has been given by anyone and as such, complainant is not the consumer of OPs. Complainant has specifically pleaded in para no. 1 of complaint that his father namely Krishan Kumar was holder of electricity connection in question and after his death, complainant has been using the said connection. Similar question had arisen before Hon’ble  State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh in Joginder Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 1999 (2) CLT 134, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh had held that not only the actual person, who had hired the services of the OPs is to be consumer entitled to claim relief under the Consumer Protection act, but also a beneficiary of such a contract of hiring services of the OPs. In present case also, the complainant is using the electricity from the electric connection in question being its beneficial user. Therefore, the complainant falls within the definition of consumer, as provided under Section  2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   

11                                The case of the complainant is that he is the consumer of OPs having electric connection issued by OPs in his shop. He paid all the bills received by him regularly. He received a bill dated 8.02.2017 for 2440 units amounting to Rs.20,190/-which is very excessive than his actual consumption. He never consumed this much electricity. The Ops have sent wrong bill to him. On the other hand, Ops argued that bill in question is issued to complainant on the basis of actual consumption recorded by his meter. As per record of OPs, the status of meter is okay and it is recording correct consumption and OPs are entitled to recover this amount of bill from complainant.

12                                 We have thoroughly gone through the file and evidence led by parties. Ld counsel for complainant argued that average consumption of complainant is about 100 units per billing cycle and he never consumed electricity more than this. To prove this, he placed on record copy of bills dated 3.12.2015 and 8.02.2017 as Ex C-2 and C-3. In these bills, the consumption of last six billing cycle is mentioned which is varying from 65 to 71 units. The Ops themselves produced copies of bills Ex OP-3 to OP-4 wherein also average consumption of meter of complainant is varying from 50 to 120 units and not more than this. So, the bill in question Ex C-3 for the period from 3.12.2016 to 8.02.2017 for consumption of 2440 units cannot be taken to be correct, whereas the average consumption of complainant is very less than this bill.

13                       We are of considered opinion that OPs did not issue the bill correctly as per actual consumption of complainant. complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby accepted with direction to OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.20,190/- raised by them vide bill dated 8.02.2017 Ex C-3. They are further directed to overhaul the bill of complainant for the period from 3.12.2016 to 8.02.2017 on the basis of average consumption of previous year. OPs are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.6000/- already deposited by complainant with them in compliance of the order of this Forum dated 21.02.2017 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 as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 17.07.2017

                  

Member                                  President                        (P Singla)                   (Ajit Aggarwal)