Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/125

Tirath Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman Cum MD PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        125

Date of Institution :  12.04.2017

Date of Decision :    25.09.2017

Tirath Ram aged about 70 years s/o Mohal Lal r/o Shaheed  Balwinder Singh Nagar, Street No. 5, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                  

...Complainant

Versus

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

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                   Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:       Sh Ranjit 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 excessive bills dt 1.12.2016, 31.01.2017 and 1.04.2017 for Rs.3850/-, Rs.4560/- and for Rs.5450/- respectively and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. BR-77/0937 (old) and no.3000677397 new and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is submitted that since 2014, he has been receiving bills on average basis and in 2016, when complainant did not receive bill for about four months then on representation of complainant, OPs visited his premises on 9.08.2016, checked the meter and recorded reading 001986, but complainant received bill in February/2016 showing previous reading as 5369 and current reading as 5370, which is very excessive. It is contended that actual reading on 9.08.2016 was 001986, but OPs had already prepared bill for 5370 units. Bill dt 3.10.2016, received by complainant also showed the same reading i.e 5370/-. On request and representation of complainant, Ops again checked his meter and recorded reading as 2200 units, whereas bill already prepared by them was for 5370 units. Thereafter, complainant received bill dt 31.01.2016 for Rs.4560/-on average reading of 1445 units, which is very excessive. Complainant approached Ops and requested them to correct the bill, but they did not do so and then, complainant further received bill dt 1.04.2017 for Rs.5450/-on average basis. Complainant made several requests to OPs to correct the bill, but they did not pay any heed to listen to his requests, which amounts to deficiency in service 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 raised through bills dt 1.12.2016, 31.01.2017 and 1.04.2017 and prayed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 18.04.2017, 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 admitted that bills in question were issued by them. It is averred that  due to failure of sap system many bills were issued showing zero amount and several bills had gone out of source. It is also admitted that on representation by complainant, they checked his meter and recorded reading of 001986 units and it is also admitted by Ops that bills issued to complainant were not correct. It is submitted that all incorrect bills were deleted and correct bills on the basis of actual consumption was prepared for the period from 20.01.2015 to 25.05.2017 for 1900 units showing consumption of 370 units on 28.01.2015 and 2270 units on 25.05.2017 and amount already paid by complainant stands adjusted in these bills. It is further averred that due to failure of sap system, bills could not be issued correctly but now, incorrect bills have been deleted and correct amount is charged as per rules and regulations and it is denied that any amount has been charged illegally. 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 to 9 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Santokh Singh as Ex OP-1 and document Ex OP-2 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                                   From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that demand raised by Ops through bills dt 1.12.2016, 31.01.2017 and 1.04.2017 for Rs.3850/-, Rs.4560/- and for Rs.5450/- respectively is illegal and unlawful. On the other hand Ops asserted that all this happed due to failure in sap system. As per Ops, due to failure in their sap system, correct bills were not issued to complainant and when they realized this mistake, they deleted all the incorrect bills and prepared correct bill. Correct bill on the basis of actual consumption was prepared for the period from 20.01.2015 to 25.05.2017 for 1900 units showing consumption of 370 units on 28.01.2015 and 2270 units on 25.05.2017 and amount already paid by complainant is also adjusted.

9                                        Now, it is the admitted case of the parties that complainant is the consumer of Ops having domestic connection in his premises. It is further admitted that Ops issued bills in question dt 1.12.2016, 31.01.2017 and 1.04.2017 for Rs.3850/-, Rs.4560/- and for Rs.5450/- respectively to complainant. The version of Ops is that earlier they issued the wrong bills to the complainant and to many other customers due to failure in sap system and when this mistake was realized, then correct bill on the basis of actual consumption was prepared for the period from 20.01.2015 to 25.05.2017 for 1900 units showing consumption of 370 units on 28.01.2015 and 2270 units on 25.05.2017 and the payments made during this period were fully adjusted by giving the refund of previous payment. There is no illegality in this bill and it is issued on the basis of actual consumption as per rules. On the other hand, ld counsel for OPs argued that admittedly, the OPs prepared the bill for the period from 28.01.2015 to 25.05.2017 on the basis of actual consumption i.e for 1900 units, but they have not adjusted the entire amount paid by the complainant during this period against bills issued by the OPs on the basis of average consumption which were very excessive than the actual consumption and still they have not prepared correct bill which amounts to deficiency in service.

 

10                                     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and  Ops are directed to withdraw the bills dated dt 1.12.2016, 31.01.2017 and 1.04.2017 for Rs.3850/-, Rs.4560/- and for Rs.5,450/- respectively and are ordered to overhaul the account of complainant on the basis of actual consumption of 1900 units from 20.01.2015 to 25.05.2017. OPs are further directed to adjust the amount already paid by complainant during this 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 as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 25.09.2017

                  

Member               President                        (P Singla)           (Ajit Aggarwal)

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.