BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.52 of 2016
Date of Instt. 25.01.2016
Date of Decision : 04.01.2017
Dyal Singh s/o Sadhu Singh r/o Village Uggi, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Shakti Sadan (The Mall), Patiala.
Sub Divisional Officer, PSPCL, Sub Division, Kala Sanghian, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. AK Rattu, Adv. Counsel for complainant.
Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1 & 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein stated that the complainant is permanent resident of Village Uggi, Tehsil and Distt. Jalandhar. The electric meter bearing No.X11FE560292 is installed in the house of the complainant at village Uggi, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The complainant has paid all electricity bill till date i.e. 31.08.2015 and there is no due of opposite parties towards the complainant. On 27.10.2015 the opposite parties has send a bill amounting to Rs.17,846/- to the complainant, on receiving of the bill the complainant shocked to see the huge amount of bill, thereafter the complainant approached to the concern authority on 02.11.2015 and enquired the matter and came to know the OP No.2 has charged the excess amount Rs.7554/- as over reading meter charges. The OPs has also included alongwith other charges in the said bill without any fault of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant has moved various applications regarding correction of the bills and he also produced all the receipts of the bills issued by OPs, but the OPs did not bother the genuine requests of the complainant and they had given no reply to the complainant.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the matter was also published in news paper but so far the opposite parties have not made any correction in the bill send by him to the complainant. Since the complainant is bonafide consumer of the opposite parties and the complainant is well protected under the provision of the law against the malafide, illegal and unlawful act of the opposite parties and further prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and the opposite parties are directed to make correction in the amount of bill dated 27.10.2015 for Rs.17,846/- issued by the opposite parties and also directed to less the the amount which was over reading meter charges and also directed to opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant as mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- being a cost of litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties and accordingly both the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties as the defendants is neither the juristic person nor can be sued and further alleged that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct and admission from filing the present complaint and the complainant is having no locus standi to file the present complaint and further averred that the compliant is incomplete and does not mention the correct and proper facts, history of the case. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further submitted that the meter was changed on 25.11.2014 from electromechanical to electronic vide MCO No.127/103311 dated 19.11.2014 and the charges levied by department is as per law and legal and the bill from the month of march 2015 to may 2015 was generated on an average basis due to change of meter where as actual consumption of the consumer was bit higher than the average consumption and pertaining to this demand letter was issued to the complainant vide memo number 1338 dated 15.09.2015, then again a notice was issued vide memo number 1551 dated 11.12.2015 which was duly received by the complainant and the notice bears the signature of the complainant then again a notice was issued vide memo number 1593 dated 31.12.2015 alongwith current bill amounting to Rs.12,500/- then in the year 2016 a notice was send to the consumer to deposit the remaining amount except the disputed amount vide memo No.189. On merits the installation of the electricity connection in the house of the complainant is admitted but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed the complaint is without merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove his claim, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA and also tendered some documents and his supplementary affidavit Ex.CB alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C7 and then closed the evidence.
5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPW1/A and also tendered some documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. After taking into consideration the respective arguments of both the counsel for the parties, we find that the installation of the electricity connection in the house of the complainant is not denied by the OP. The question remains only whether the OP had added excess amount of Rs.7554/- in the last bill of dated 27.10.2015 which is available on the file Ex.C2, in response to the excess amount, the OP took a plea that the meter of the complainant was changed on 25.11.2014 from electromechanical to electronic meter and the bill from the month of march 2015 to may 2015 was generated on an average basis and the said disputed amount is an arrear of the actual consumption of the complainant to facilitate this submission the OP has brought on file affidavit of the employee of OP Ex.OPW1/A and some notices Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP5 sent to the complainant for depositing of the said amount and even the last letter dated 14.09.2016 Ex.OP5 the OP has asked the complainant to deposit the other amount of the disputed bill after excluding that disputed amount of Rs.7554/-. From the notices given by the OP to the complainant itself show that the OP could not able to explain how the excess amount of Rs.7554/- is calculated as actual consumption because in each and every bill during that period issued to the complainant itself show the consumption of units whatsoever consumed by the complainant so it means that the bill issued to the complainant was not on an average basis. So, accordingly we came to the conclusion that the OP has demanded excess amount of Rs.7554/- from the complainant by adding in the bill dated 27.10.2015 and accordingly we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief.
8. In view of the above detail discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to make a correction in the bill dated 27.10.2015 i.e. by excluding the amount of Rs.7554/- from the total bill of Rs.17846/- and remaining amount be recovered from the complainant and further OP has harassed the complainant by sending a wrong bill therefore OP are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1000/-. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. 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 Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
04.01.2017 Member President
