BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.454 of 2016
Date of Instt. 07.11.2016
Date of Decision: 20.02.2018
Inderjit Singh, Age 62 years S/o Ram Singh, R/o 140-A/6, Preet Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar (Mob. No.9815215003)
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Asstt. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Civil Lines, Partap Bagh, Jalandhar.
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall, Patiala-147001
..….…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. KL Dua, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is the consumer of the OP as he has electricity connection, vide account No.J73CR150991H for domestic use issued by the OP No.1. The status of the complainant's electricity meter always remained “O” meaning OK since installation of meter. On 24.06.2016, the OP No.1 sent a bill for the period from 21.04.2016 to 24.06.2016 showing status of meter “T” Code meaning Terminal Seal broken as indicated in the backside of all bills. On receipt of the above bill, the complainant gave an application to OP No.1 on 27.06.2016, whereby requesting to remove the “T” Code status and make the status of meter “O” (OK). That on 16.05.2016, the OPs put-out the meter from wooden box affixed inside wall of complainant's house and installed it outside the premises in a meter box placed for four meters. Despite lapse of five months, the OP No.1 did not delete the “T” Code from bill. Instead of removing the “T” Code status from bill, the OPs again written “T” code status in the next bill dated 24.08.2016. Despite so many requests and several visits made by the complainant to the office of OP No.1, the OP No.1 neither took any action on the application dated 27.06.2016 of the complainant nor removed the “T” code from bill. Then on 30.08.2016, the complainant again sent an application through registered post to OP No.1 require to give the detailed information as per application. Instead of giving the desire information, the said application was returned to the complainant, vide memo No.854 dated 20.09.2016 with remarks, concerned Additional Superintendent Engineer would reply the above application.
2. That the complainant sent fresh application alongwith old application to Additional S.E. Maqsudan (W) Division. That the complainant also wrote a letter to Additional Superintendent Engineer. On 26.10.2016, three employees of the OP No.1 came to the complainant's house, who affixed the seal of meter installed outside house and assured that the over head joint would be made pacca with M-Seal on next day and “T” Code would be deleted from next bills, but nobody came to rectify the said overhead joint. On 27.10.2016, the OP No.1 sent bill for the period from 24.08.2016 to 27.10.2016 showing consumption 508 units for Rs.4440/- in which the sum of Rs.1060/- sundry charges was added to be paid by the complainant. But the “T” Code was not deleted from this bill also. The amount of this bill was deposited by the complainant under protest to save the disconnection of his electricity connection. Then on 27.10.20116, the Meter Reader came to take the reading, at that time, the actual reading was running 20971, but the Meter Reader recorded reading 20991. As such, 20 units recorded excess and entered in this bill. The amount of this bill is too much higher than all other previous bills and this is due to negligence of OP No.1.
3. That on 28.10.2016, the complainant gave an application to OP No.1 requested to reduce the excess recorded 20 units to delete the sundry charges to rectify the wrong bill and remove the “T” Code from the bill, but no action was taken and it is clearly established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and also harassed the complainant and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to remove “T” Code status from the bills and their records and be also directed to replace the wire and put new overhead wire without joint and be also directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present frivolous complaint and further alleged that the present complaint is the misuse of the process of law and even the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous, the same is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. On merits, the factum in regard to installation of electricity meter as well as recording of “T” Code status in the meter and filing of the application by the complainant are admitted, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn two affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed the evidence.
6. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/A alongwith document Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. The OPs have not denied that the electric meter of the complainant always having status of “O” means “OK”, but thereafter the status of the said meter “T” Code has been started showing from the electric bill of 24.08.2016 and it is alleged by the OP that the said terminal seal of the meter of the complainant was affixed and the factum to this effect has been entered in the system on 24.12.2016 and accordingly, the “T” Code was removed and further alleged that the Meter Reader has not recorded 20 units excess, it is a mere allegation of the complainant and same is not proved by any manner and further took a plea by the OP that the sundry charges of Rs.1060/- was taken from the complainant in the bill dated 27.10.2016, but the same was recovered from the complainant that a credit of Rs.1080/- was inadvertently given to the complainant on 12.07.2016 and same was rectified and accordingly, recovered the said amount of Rs.1060/- from the complainant and further alleged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
9. We have considered the plea taken by the OP as well as the claim of the complainant and find that the almost allegations made by the complainant is admitted by the OPs. So, for recording of 20 excess units by the Reader is concerned, we are very well agree with the submission of learned counsel for the OP that if, in any case 20 excess units have been recorded by the Meter Reader, then the same must be automatically adjusted in the next bill. So, thereby no loss is going to cause to the complainant. So for the concern of charging an amount of Rs.1060/- as sundry charges in the bill dated 27.10.2016 Ex.C-9 is related regarding that the plea taken by the OP is not sustainable in the eyes of law because if, any mistake has been committed by the official of the OP, then for that why the complainant will suffer and moreover, if any excess amount to the consumption of electricity charges, is to be recovered from the consumer, then as per electricity rules, a separate notice is required to give to the consumer, but in this case, the OP has not comply this condition and therefore, OPs are not legally entitled to charge the said amount of Rs.1060/- from the complainant under the pretext of sundry charges for which the complainant is entitled to get recovered the same from the OPs.
10. Further, it is admitted by the OP that the status of the meter of the complainant has been showing for the last so many months as “T” Code (means Terminal Seal Broken). In order to rectify the status of the meter from “T” Code to “O” Code, the complainant has admittedly submitted applications to the OP on 27.06.2016 Ex.C-3 and then on 28.10.2016 Ex.C10, but despite that the bills issued to the complainant i.e. Bill Ex.C-4, Ex.C-9, Ex.C-11 and even last bill Ex.C-13 dated 21.02.2017 have been showing the status of the meter as “T” Code. So, it means that the plea taken by the OP that the Terminal Seal has been affixed on 26.10.2016 and the same has been entered in the system on 24.12.2016 is not a correct version, if affixing of Terminal Seal, entered in the system on 24.12.2016, then it means the status of the meter from “T” Code to “O” Code must be change in the next bill i.e. 21.02.2017, but the same has not been changed. So, under these circumstances, we find that the OPs are very much negligent and there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and due to that reason, a lot of mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant regarding that the complainant is entitled for compensation.
11. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and accordingly, the same is partly accepted and OPs are directed to refund the excess amount recovered from the complainant i.e. Rs.1060/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint, till realization and further OPs are directed to remove “T” Code status in the coming bills and OPs are further directed to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.7000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
20.02.2018 Member President
