Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/87

RAJAN THAKUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

03 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        87

Date of Institution :  17.03.2017

Date of Decision :    3.10.2017

Rajan Thakur aged about 45 years, s/o Darshan Lal r/o New Cantt Road, Near Gurpreet Avenue, 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 bill dated 4.03.2017 for Rs.2,62,890/- and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- 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. KG-68/0155 (old) and no. 3000436070 new and he has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill dated 12.07.2016 for Rs.85,010/-showing status of meter as ‘R’ and bill was issued on average basis and previous reading was 41767 units. On receiving the same, complainant gave application before OPs to check his meter                            as it was working properly, they showed the status of meter as ‘R’ meaning thereby that it was burnt. On request of complainant, OPs visited his premises on 19.07.2016 and recorded the reading as 26653 units. Meter was working properly and thereafter, OPs again visited his site and checked the meter on 24.10.2016 and found that his meter was working well and reading thereon was 29646 units. As per checking report, meter of complainant was changed vide MCO dt 2.09.2014 and new meter was installed with reading of 11538 units, but due to non supply of data of MCO to computer, the bill was being prepared showing meter as burnt. It is further contended that on 2.09.2014 after installation of new meter, new reading was 11538 and complainant is liable to pay from reading 11538 onwards but the bills sent to him showing meter reading as burnt are very excessive. Further complainant received bill dt 4.03.2017 for Rs.2,62,890/- showing old reading as 30216 and current reading as 1514 units i.e total reading of 31730 units. The arrears shown in this bill are very excessive. It is contended that on 2.09.2014, reading on meter was 11538 and on 4.03.2017, reading is 31370 meaning thereby that complainant has consumed 20192 units from 2.09.2014 to 4.03.2017 and has to pay for 20192 units. It is further contended that during this period he has paid Rs.37,930/- on 5.09.2014, Rs.17,500/- in March/2015, Rs.30,000/-on 11.08.2015; Rs.27,500/-in Dec,2015 and Rs.20,000/-on 20.08.2016 except the current bill. On receiving the same, complainant visited the office of OP-2 and requested them to correct the bill, but they flatly refused to correct the bill, rather threatened 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 correct the bill and to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-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 20.03.2017, 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 they admitted that bill dt 12.07.2016 for Rs.85,010/- was issued to complainant by them and also admitted that wrong bill was sent to complainant. It is averred that after overhauling the meter of complainant, correct particulars of meter were supplied to Sap system and vide MCO dt 30.01.2015 effected on 14.02.2015, MCO was entered in Sap system in Dec, 2016. MCO was not incorporated in the record as new meter was installed at the reading of 11538 units. It is admitted that new replaced meter of complainant was recording correct reading but due to non supply of data of MCO to sap system, bills were being prepared showing the meter as burnt. It is also admitted that checking of meter was done on 24.10.2016 and it was found that meter was working well and was recording exact reading as per consumption, but its status was shown as burnt. It is further admitted that complainant deposited the cost of burnt meter Rs.520/-on 2.09.2014 and new meter was installed at his premises on 2.09.2014 with initial reading of 11538 units and reading on 7.06.2017 was 32244 units. Bill for consumption of 20706 units was prepared for Rs.2,86,166/- and previous payment of Rs.1,54,870/-made by complainant has also been adjusted and refund of Rs.40,639/-was also given to complainant and total refund of Rs.2,36,148/- is given as per sap system and now remaining amount due towards complainant upto 7.06.2017 is Rs.90,660/- and complainant is liable to pay the same. Ops asserted that all this happened due to wrong billing on average basis as sap system of OPs was not working properly. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and reiterated that due to failure in sap system, reading was not recorded properly and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                         We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

6                                              From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that amount of Rs.2,62,890/- raised by Ops vide bill dated 4.03.2017 is highly excessive, illegal and is unlawful and nothing is due towards him. There is no denial of the fact that OPs replaced the meter of complainant on 2.09.2014 and new meter installed at his premises had the reading of 11538 and when OPs prepared bill for the period from 2.09.2014 to 4.03.2017, OPs considered the reading from 11538 units onwards as new meter had initial reading of 11538 units and OPs prepared the bills for disputed period after excluding the 11538 units which were at the initial stage of installation of meter at the premises of complainant, but the amount  charged by OPs for the period from 2.09.2014 to 4.03.2017 is highly excessive and is not as per rates per unit applicable and prevalent during that period and even OPs have not adjusted the amount paid by complainant during the disputed period appropriately and correctly.Correct criteria for refunding the amount paid by complainant is not adopted by OPs. On the other hand Ops asserted that due to failure of sap system wrong bill was issued to complainant and when this mistake was realized, they overhauled his account and prepared the correct bill but due non supply of data regarding MCO i.e change of meter of complainant on 2.09.2014, the particulars were incorporated in computer record in December, 2016 and inadvertently, wrong bill was prepared. However, they have made necessary adjustment of payment already made by complainant and appropriate refund has also been given to complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

7                                                  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 bill dated 4.03.2017 for Rs.2,62,890/-.The version of Ops is that earlier they issued the wrong bill to the complainant and many other customers due to failure in sap system, when this mistake was noticed, they overhauled the meter of complainant and prepared correct bill but due to non supply of data regarding MCO to computer system bill could not be sent to complainant correctly. Incorporation regarding change of meter of complainant on 2.09.2014 was entered in the record of computer in December, 2016. It is also admitted by OPs that meter of complainant was recording correct reading as per consumption but due to non supply of data to sap system, status of meter was wrong shown as burnt. However, OPs brought before the Forum that payments made by complainant during this period were fully adjusted by giving the refund of previous payment. It is further averred by OPs that initial reading on meter of complainant on 2.09.2014 was for 11538 units and reading on 7.06.2017 was 32244 units. His account was overhauled and bill for consumption of 20706 units was prepared for Rs.2,86,166/- and previous payment of Rs.1,54,870/-made by complainant has also been adjusted and refund of Rs.40,639/-was also given to complainant and total refund of Rs.2,36,148/- is given. Moreover, it is observed that amount charged by Ops as per power consumption units is not appropriate as amount charged by them seems to be highly excessive and it is not correct as per prevalent rate of electricity charges. Demand of Rs.2,86,166/- raised by Ops from complainant vide bill dated 7.06.2017 is highly excessive and seems to be exaggerated. It is also a matter of concern that refund given by OPs as they allege to have given, is not rightly calculated by them. Due to wrong billing system of OPs, complainant has faced great harassment and it amounts to deficiency in service.

8                                     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and the impugned demand for Rs.2,86,166/ raised by Ops from complainant vide bill dated 7.06.2017 is set aside and quashed. OPs are ordered to charge the bill as per rate prevalent at the time to which it pertains and are also directed to give proper refund of amount already paid by complainant during disputed period to OPs. OPs are further ordered to adjust the amount of Rs.50,000/-deposited by complainant with OPs in compliance of order of this Forum dt 20.03.2017 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 : 3.10.2017

                  

Member                                  President               (P Singla)                   (Ajit Aggarwal)