Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/101

preetpal singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

chairman/MD PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

19 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No :         101

Date of Institution :   27.03.2017

Date of Decision :     19.09.2017

 

Preetpal Singh aged about 29 years, s/o Bachittar Singh r/o Street No. 5, Teacher Colony, 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, PSPCL, Sub Division, 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 bill dt 15.03.2017 for Rs.1,53,280/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.10,000/- 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. 3000386326  is issued by OPs 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 dt 19.01.2017 for Rs.3,548/-showing old reading 5910 and current reading 6121 i.e current consumption of 211 units. Thereafter, he received bill dt 15.03.2017 for Rs.1,53,280/-showing old reading of 26,195 and current reading 26461 units and this bills contained arrears of Rs.1,27,755/-, which is very excessive and even no detail regarding arrears was ever given to complainant and reading of meter is not tallied with bill issued previously. It is further submitted that meter of complainant is installed in a pillar box which already contains 20 meters installed in it and only employees of OPs have access to these meters and boxes and no body else can approach the meter. It is further submitted that on receiving the bill in question for Rs.1,53,280/- complainant approached OP-2 and requested them to  provide the  detail and correct the bill, but OP-2 refused to do so and threatened him to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount, 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 to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 28.03.2017, 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 OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong, but admitted before the Forum that bill dt 19.01.2017 showing old reading 5910 and new reading for 6121 with current consumption of 211 units and  bill dated 15.03.2017 were sent by them. It is asserted that connection of complainant was checked on 3.02.2017 and during checking it was found that meter no of complainant is 854803 but  bill for consumption reading pertaining to meter no.999569 i.e of some one else was sent to complainant. Amount of 6121 units relating to meter of some other person was charged from complainant. meter of complainant recorded correct reading of 26461 upto 14.03.2017 and bill for this consumption reading was prepared for Rs.1,94,294/-. Complainant paid the consumption charges of Rs.40,350/-for some other meter reading and therefore rebate of Rs.40,350/-was given to complainant and after giving rebate, the total amounts payable by complainant comes to Rs.1,53,944/-. Complainant deposited Rs.50,000/-on 8.05.2017 and remaining amount of Rs.1,03,944/- is still due towards complainant. It is further averred that when this mistake regarding wrong consumption reading came to their notice, it was explained to both the consumers and checking was done in the presence of both the customers and thereafter requisite adjustment was made. It is asserted that complete detail of amount charged is given to complainant but he did not deposit the same. It is further averred that no 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 6 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 documents Ex OP-2 to OP-3 and closed the evidence.

7                                   We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

8                            From the careful perusal of record, evidence produced by parties and after going through the pleadings of parties, it is observed that grievance of complainant is that OPs issued him excessive bill dated 15.03.2017 for Rs.1,53,280/-.complainant has been paying all the bills regularly and nothing is due towards him on account of consumption charges. on receiving the bill in question, when complainant approached OPs to request them to provide detail of amount charged and to rectify the bill, OPs did not pay any heed to listen to him and threatened him to disconnect his connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time. As per complainant, amount charged to him is very excessive and also submitted that he has no access to his own meter which is installed in a pillar box that contains almost 20 other meters and only employees of Ops can approach or open the said pillar box containing meters. Action of OPs in not giving proper detail and for not listening to the genuine request of complainant amounts to deficiency in service and he has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, OPs brought before the Forum that inadvertently, their meter reading took wrong consumption reading for the meter of complainant. he wrongly noted the reading of meter number which belongs to some other customer and charged bill pertaining to this meter to complainant and wrongly charged the meter reading of complainant to that customer and when this mistake came into the notice of OPs they rectified the  same and carried out checking in the presence of complainant as well as other customer whose meter reading was wrongly taken for complainant. Requisite adjustment was made and complainant was duly explained all the facts.

 9                                It is further averred that amount of 6121 units relating to meter of some other person was charged from complainant. Meter of complainant recorded correct reading of 26461 upto 14.03.2017 and bill for this consumption reading was prepared for Rs.1,94,294/-. Complainant paid the consumption charges of Rs.40,350/-for some other meter reading and therefore rebate of Rs.40,350/-was given to him and after giving rebate, the total amounts payable by complainant comes to Rs.1,53,944/-. Complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- on 8.05.2017 and remaining amount of Rs.1,03,944/- is still due towards complainant and he is liable to pay the same.

10                                  Copies of consumption charges bills from Ex C-2 to 6 are sufficient and cogent evidence to prove that complainant has been making payment of all bills regularly and there is also no iota of doubt that complainant has no access to open the meter installed in pillar box. Ops have failed to justify the point that they took wrong consumption reading for the meter of complainant. Moreover, it is clear from the documents that Ops have not justified that checking was ever made in the presence of complainant. The alleged over hauling of account was so made in the absence of complainant and no information regarding it was given to him. The Ops never served any prior notice giving complete details of charges to complainant.

11                                  The Ld Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity supply Instruction Manual of OPs where regulation no. 93 is regarding payment of arrears not originally billed. Relevant regulations is reproduced hereunder:

Payment of Arrears not Originally Billed :

93.1 There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/unauthorized use of electricity or demand / load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/ multiplication factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc. In all such cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges shall be shown as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills shall be issued separately giving complete details of the charges in regard to theft cases, slowness of meters, wrong connection of the meter and unauthorized use of electricity etc. In such cases, the copy of relevant instructions under which the charges have been levied shall also be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of cases by consumer forums if approached by the consumer.

                        He argued that as per regulation 93.01, OPs have to issue a separate bill giving full detail of the charges levied prior to adding it into the electricity bills but in this case, they did not issue any separate bill giving any detail and facts for which they demanded this amount. He further put reliance on the citation  2004(1) CLT 622 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Garjit Kaur, wherein our Hon’ble State Commission decided that Electricity Bill–Amount outstanding against one connection added to bill of another connection related to the complainant-respondent–No law shown which permitted the amount outstanding against one connection that could be added in the bill of another connection if the demand related to the same consumer–Order of the District Forum allowing the complaint upheld. He argued that Ops cannot demand this amount from the complainant.

12                                        In the light of above discussion and arguments advanced by parties and case law produced by the complainant, we are fully convinced with complainant and he has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs cannot claim the amount of Rs.1,51,390/-from complainant on account of arrears/sundry charges without giving any prior notice. Therefore, OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.1,51,390/- which is demanded by them from complainant vide bill dated 15.03.2017 on account of arrears/sundry charges. OPs are further directed to adjust in subsequent bills the amount of Rs.50,000/-already deposited by complainant with OPs in compliance of the order dt 28.03.2017 of this Forum. 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 : 19.09.2017

                                          Member               President                                                               (P Singla)               (Ajit Aggarwal)