BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint No: 25 of 2008.<br /> <br /> Instituted On: 13.03.2008.<br /> <br /> Date of Service: 04.04.2008.<br /> <br /> Decided On: 23.05.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Satpal Singh (aged about 63 years) son of Sh.Diwan Cand son of Moti Ram, resident of 383/6, New Town, Moga.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> <br /> 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, South Sub Division, Moga.<br /> <br /> 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, South Sub Division, Moga.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> <br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> <br /> Sh.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Satpal Singh complainant in person.<br /> <br /> Sh.Satvir Singh Advocate counsel for the OPs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> Sh.Satpal Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Patiala and others (herein-after referred to as ‘Board’)-opposite parties directing them to quash the demand of Rs. 8270/- added in the consumption bill dated 01.03.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> <br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Satpal Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Parties-Board having NRS electric connection no.PR/36/0330H with connected load of 2.12 KW at his shop which has been taken on rent from Municipal Council, Moga. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. The OPs-Board has sent a bill dated 01.03.2008 vide which they demanded Rs.8270/- regarding 1643 units. That the complainant never used the energy to that extent. That the impugned demand raised by the OPs-Board is illegal, unwarranted and against the rules and regulations of the OPs-Board. That the complainant had approached the office of OPs-Board number of times and requested to withdraw the impugned demand, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to the complainant for which he has claimed Rs.20000/- as compensation. <br /> <br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.Satvir Singh Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that as per the record, the electric connection in question has been installed in the name of Sham Lal, so the complainant is not their ‘consumer’; that the complainant is estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. In fact, his meter was replaced vide MCO no.36/65785 on 28.1.2008 being defective. Thereafter, the bill for the month of 3/2008 payable on or before 18.3.2008 was issued on average basis @ 1643 units. This bill was based on the previous year consumption taking the average consumption of 248 units for the month of 3/07 with connected load of 0.32 KW. Lateron, the load was enhanced to 2.12 KW vide report of JE Installation dated 12.4.2007, but the complainant refused to sign the report. That the disputed bill has been issued to the complainant on pro rata basis as per sales regulation 73.1.3. On merits, the OPs-Board took up the same plea as taken up by them in preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copies of bills Ex.A2 to Ex.A16, copy of receipt Ex.A17 and closed his evidence. <br /> <br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence joint affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.M.S.Brar Sr.XEN and Gurmit Singh SDO, copy of checking report Ex.R2, copy of consumption data Ex.R3, copy of another checking report Ex.R4 and closed the evidence.<br /> <br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Satpal Singh complainant and Sh.Satvir Singh ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> <br /> 7. Sh.Satpal Singh complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.8270/- raised vide bill dated 01.03.2008 by the OPs-Board is wrong & illegal and the complainant is not liable to pay the same. This contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant has some force. Admittedly, the meter of the complainant was found defective and the same was changed vide MCO dated 28.1.2008. The bill for 3/2008 of the impugned amount on the average basis of 1643 units was sent to him on prorata basis. This bill appears to be highly excessive and exaggerated because the consumption data Ex.R3 filed by the OPs-Board shows that before and after this bill, the complainant never received the bill for consumption of more than 365 units. The consumption data Ex.R3 from 4/06 to 12/2007 shows that the complainant used the average consumption of 240 units.<br /> <br /> Month Consumption Month Consumption<br /> <br /> 4/06 199 units 4/07 32 units<br /> <br /> 6/06 322 units 6/07 84 units<br /> <br /> 8/06 352 units 8/07 361 units<br /> <br /> 10/06 365 units 10/07 187 units<br /> <br /> 12/06 251 units 12/07 241 units<br /> <br /> 2/07 48 units<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> During the course of arguments, the complainant has also produced the bill for 5/08 showing the consumption of 224 units only. Hence, the consumption of 1643 units taken by the OPs-Board for 2/2008 is quite excessive, even if the same had been taken on prorate basis. Regulation 73.1.2 also provides that for charging the consumer for the period the meter remained inoperative, the average basis of last 4 to 6 months or average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher of the two figures shall be charged to set the consumer’s account right finally. In the instant case, the OPs-Board should have taken the average of previous 6 months showing the consumption of 361 units for 8/2007, 187 units for 10/2007 and 241 units for 12/2007 which comes the average of 263 units. Thus, relying upon the consumption data Ex.R3, we hold that the OPs-Board shall charge the complainant for 2/2008 to the extent of consumption of 263 units only and the OPs-Board shall issue the fresh bill for 2/2008 on the basis of consumption of 263 units only.<br /> <br /> 8. Sh.Satvir Singh ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has not argued that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable because the connection is in the name of Sham Lal, for the reasons best known to him. However, the record on the file shows that the connection is in the name of Sham Lal, but it is being used by Satpal Singh complainant, who is tenant in the shop owned by Municipal Council, Moga. In these circumstances, we direct the complainant to get the electric connection transferred in his name within two months, failing which the OPs-Board shall be at liberty to disconnect his connection permanently. <br /> <br /> 9. No other point is urged or argued before us.<br /> <br /> 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. The impugned demand of Rs.8270/- raised by the OPs-Board in the bill dated 01.03.2008 is set aside and quashed. However, the OPs-Board shall issue the fresh bill to the complainant on the basis of consumption of 263 units for 2/2008. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order shall be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> <br /> Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> <br /> Dated:23.05.2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />