Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/106

BHAJAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

RANJIT SINGH SARAO

19 Sep 2017

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                          Complaint No :        106

Date of Institution :  3.04.2017

Date of Decision :    19.09.2017

Bhajan Singh aged about 54 years, s/o Gurdev Singh, r/o German Colony, Old Cantt Road, Street No. 3, 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,  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 withdraw the excessive bill dt 24.07.2016  for Rs.52,360/-,  to correct the bill dt 16.03.2017 and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.4,000/-.

2                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having electric connection bearing a/c no. 3000386660 at his residence and he has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that in September, 2014 meter of complainant became defective and in November, 2014 MCO was issued for replacement of same.  OPs installed the new meter at his premises in May, 2016 and till then, complainant was receiving bills on average basis and was paying consumption charges as and when received and nothing is due towards him. After replacing the old meter, complainant received bill dt 24.07.2016 fo Rs.52,360/- of 6705 units i.e 5988 of old meter and 717 of new meter consumption, which was very excessive. On receiving the said bill, complainant visited the office of OP-2 and requested them to correct the bill and on this, OPs assured complainant to correct the bill, but complainant again received bills for September/ 2016, November/2016 and January, 2017 without any correction of previous amount. Thereafter, he received bill dt 16.03.2017 for the period from 22.01.2017 to 16.03.2017 for rs.32,730/-in which Rs.1170/-were for current consumption. Complainant further approached Ops and made request to them to correct the bill, where he was told that bills deposited by him on average basis have been adjusted and remaining bill is issued but they did not provide his proper detail for the amount charged.  Complainant also requested them to withdraw the inflated bill but they denied 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.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.4,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                        Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 17.04.2017, 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 ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong but admitted before the Forum that bill in question was issued by them. It is averred that meter of complainant was defective and vide MCO dt 27.11.2014 it was ordered to be changed and new meter bearing serial no.8672485 was installed on 28.05.2016. It is averred that at the time of removal of meter, reading on it was 20804 units whereas complainant paid bill upto reading 14816 and complainant was charged with actual consumption of 5988 units. Reading of new meter was 717 and therefore, bill for 6705 units i.e 5588 plus 717 for Rs.52,360/-was issued. Complainant paid Rs.5800/-on 9.08.2016,Rs.36,000/-on 3.10.2016, Rs.4,000/-on 6.12.2016 and Rs.4,130/-on 3.02.2017 and regarding 6705 units, meter of complainant was overhauled and average amount of Rs.16,000/-was refunded andRs.31,638/-were balance on 20.03.17. Complainant paid current bill for Rs.1170/- and in this bill Rs.1,092/-as surcharge were added and total amount due towards him was 32,730/-and therefore, bill for Rs.32,730/-was issued to him and he is liable to pay the same. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                              Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 4 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-4 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 evidence produced on record and from the pleadings of the parties and from the documents, it is clear that complainant is the consumer of Ops and domestic supply electric connection is installed at his premises by the OPs. Case of complainant is that in September, 2014, meter of complainant became defective and in November, 2014 MCO was issued for replacement of same.  OPs installed the new meter at his premises on 28^th  May, 2016 and till then, he was receiving bills on average basis. After replacing the old meter, complainant received bill dt 24.07.2016 for Rs.52,360/- of  6705 units i.e 5988 of old meter and 717 of new meter consumption, which was very excessive. Complainant visited the office of OP-2 and requested them to correct the bill and on this, OPs assured him to correct the bill, but complainant again received bills for September/ 2016, November/2016 and January, 2017 without any correction of previous amount. Thereafter, he received bill dt 16.03.2017 for the period from 22.01.2017 to 16.03.2017 for Rs.32,730/-in which Rs.1170/-were for current consumption and remaining amount as sundry charges. Complainant further made requests to them to correct the bill, but he was told that bills deposited by him on average basis have been adjusted and remaining bill is issued but they did not provide his proper detail for the amount charged. Repeated requests made by complainant for withdrawing the inflated bill have gone futile, which amounts to deficiency in service and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. In reply, OPs admitted that bills in question were issued by them.

9                                           As per OPs meter of complainant was changed and new meter was installed on 28.05.2016. At the time of removal of meter, reading on it was 20804 units whereas complainant paid bill upto reading 14816 and complainant was charged with actual consumption of 5988 units. Reading of new meter was 717 and therefore, bill for 6705 units i.e 5588 plus 717 for Rs.52,360/-was issued. Complainant paid Rs.5800/-on 9.08.2016, Rs.36,000/-on 3.10.2016, Rs.4000/- on 6.12.2016 and Rs.4130/-on 3.02.2017 and regarding 6705 units, meter of complainant was overhauled and average amount of Rs.16000/-was refunded and Rs.31,638/-were balance on 20.03.2017. Complainant paid current bill for Rs.1170/- and in this bill Rs.1092/-as surcharge were added and total amount due towards him was 32,730/-and therefore, bill for Rs.32,730/-was issued to him and he is liable to pay the same. They have charged the amount as per rules and regulations of OPs and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10                             Grievance of complainant is that amount of Rs.32,730/- raised by Ops is illegal and unlawful and nothing is due towards him. On the other hand Ops assert that they have charged amount as per rules and regulations and on the basis of difference of consumption units for which complainant has not paid the bill. Complainant argued that the old meter of complainant was defective and replaced with new meter. Ops wrongly and illegally calculated this amount as there was nothing due towards the complainant. He paid all the dues regarding old meter to Ops. They wrongly showed excess reading of old meter. As per their own rules and regulations of PSPCL ltd, every defective meter removed shall be packed and sealed in the presence of consumer and further checking of the meter in the M E Lab should be in the presence of consumer and prior notice before checking in the M E Lab should be issued to consumer to procure his presence. The Ops never packed and sealed the meter in question in the presence of complainant nor sent it for checking to ME Lab, which is a violation of their own rules and regulations. The relevant regulations of PSPCL are reproduced as hereunder:

                   As per regulations no.55. Replacement of Meters/Metering Equipment : 55.1 Single Phase Electromechanical Meters :   E/M Meters removed from the consumer premises on replacement with the electronic meters shall be returned to M E Labs without any other formality and ME Labs will not carry out any checking/testing of these meters except in case of disputed meters. In case of disputed meters removed under code – G, M & R (glass broken, meter burnt & ME seals broken) and in cases where there is sufficient evidence of theft /tampering etc at the time of removal, the JE concerned shall record his observation on the MCO itself and such meters shall be packed and sealed in the presence of consumers for further checking in M E Labs in his presence.

                  Further as per regulation no. 21.4 (d) : In case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the Licensee’s laboratory, the consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing atleast seven days in advance. The signature of the consumer, or his authorized representative, if present would be obtained on the Test Result Sheet and a copy thereof supplied to consumer.

11                                  He further argued that moreover, as per their  own regulations, OPs can not charges the dues relating to previous period without issuing a separate bill giving complete detail of the charges levied.  Copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied should also be supplied to consumer but in the present case, no separate bill or notice giving complete detail of the amount charged or period of the amount ever issued to the complainant. So, as per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not demand this amount and can not add this amount in current  in current bill. 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.

93.2 Limitation:

Under Section 56(2) of the Act, no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two year from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied.

12                                   The complainant further put reliance on citation 2016 (2) Consumer Law Today 429 titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Others Vs Dinesh Sharma, wherein it is held that Electricity-Sundry charges can not be charged without show cause notice to complainant. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-electricity-Sundry charges added in electricity bill of complainant-Held-NO show cause notice issued to the complainant before imposing penalty-OPs have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant-In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency in service-Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case. Para 7-The appellants have failed to show any notice issued to the complainant before imposing the penalty. Our Hon’ble High Court has also opined in Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is required before imposing the penalty and an order about person who was likely to be affected thereby. In the present case, the appellants OPs have miserably failed to show that previous reading of defective meter was correct. In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the electricity Act and it is deficiency in service. Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case.

13                                            It is admitted that at the time of change of meter, the meter was never sealed or checked in the presence of complainant or his representatives. Further, this meter was never checked or opened in the presence of complainant or his representatives  and was also not sent to M E Lab. No opportunity to get checked the meter in the presence of complainant or his representatives or to be heard before issuance of this bill/assessment order was given to complainant. In these circumstances, it is made out that OPs have no plausible reason to justify the amount of Rs32,730/-charged by them as appropriate and we cannot rely upon reading of old which meter which OPs themselves admit to be defective.

14                                             Further as per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not charge any amount of previous dues or arrears without giving any supplementary bill or notice giving complete detail of charges and also giving copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied. They can not demand the arrear in the current bill as sundry charges and in the present case, the OPs have failed to produce any  evidence or document which proves that they issued any supplementary bill  or notice giving complete and full detail of the amount charged by them as arrears of consumption as alleged by them.

15                                            Therefore, from the above discussion, we are fully convinced with the arguments and case law produced by complainant and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to overhaul the account of complainant and withdraw the demand for amount for 5588 units allegedly charged by them of old meter vide bill dated 24.07.2016 and correct the bill and OPs are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.10,000/-already deposited by complainant with OPs in compliance of the order dt 17.04.2017 passed by this Forum 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 : 19.09.2017

                                                 Member                 President                                                                     (P Singla)               (Ajit Aggarwal)

 

 

cc-106/17

 Bhajan Singh Vs PSPCL

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                 Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. 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