DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> <br /> C.C. No. 3 of 1.1.2008<br /> Decided on : 28.2.2008 <br /> <br /> Jagrup Singh S/o Sh. Dial Singh S/o Gurdit Singh, R/o Near Post Office, Talwandi Sabo, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.SDO/AEE, Punjab State Elecy. Board, Sub Division, Talwandi Sabo.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. J.P.S Brar, Advocate<br /> O R D E R.<br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to instal new meter in his premises; send correct bill; withdraw bill dated 1.12.2007 or quash the same; pay Rs. 6,700/-paid by him as rent for taking the Generator; Rs. 100/- per day w.e.f 18.12.2007 upto the date of installation of the correct meter and Rs. 10,000/- for mental tension, harassment and botheration.<br /> 2. Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. TS 18/0222 L has been installed in his premises. Bill dated 1.12.2007 was received by him for Rs. 9,938/- i.e. Rs. 9,110/- payable by due date and Rs. 828/- as surcharge if it is paid after due date. He assails this bill as illegal, against rules and Sales Regulations. It is further averred by him that the meter installed in his premises had burnt an year before the filing of the complaint. Opposite parties were sending the bills on average basis. A sum of Rs. 320/- was got deposited from him vide receipt No. 481 dated 10.12.2007 for installing new meter in its place. In the bill dated 1.12.2007, a sum of Rs. 8,283/- has been shown for sale of power without details thereof. After the meter had burnt due to excess load, opposite parties had disconnected the electricity connection. He was undergoing great difficulty in the absence of the electricity. Generator was taken on rent by him @ Rs. 100/- per day. Since, the meter was burnt, there was no question of raising the demand of Rs. 8,283/- for sale of power and Rs. 827/- as electricity duty. He has already paid rent of the Generator to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- w.e.f. 10.10.2007 to 10.11.2007 and Rs. 3,700/- for the period from 10.11.2007 to 17.12.2007 and is still paying to the Fancy Tent House, Talwandi Sabo. Opposite parties were requested to withdraw the impugned demand, but to no effect.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainant is not consumer; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainant has no cause of action and complaint is false and frivolous. They admit that bill dated 1.12.2007 for Rs. 9,938/- was sent to the complainant. They deny that bill is illegal. Electricity meter installed in the premises of the complainant was burnt by the complainant due to his negligence in operation. This bill has been sent on average basis. Hence, it is legal and binding upon him. Demand of Rs. 8,283/- and RS. 827/- for sale of power and electricity duty is valid. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Jagroop Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopies of bills (Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.6), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex.C.7) & copies of rent receipts (Ex.C.8 & Ex.C.9).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2) of S/Sh. Ragurit Singh Brar, SDO and Gurlabh Singh, J.E respectively, photocopy of MCO (Ex.R.3), photocopies of pages No. 14 & 13 of ledger (Ex.R.4 & Ex.R.5) and copy of Consumption Data. <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. Admittedly, meter installed in the premises of the complainant had burnt. Impugned bill dated 1.12.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.2, has been sent on average basis showing consumption of 2094 units. For this consumption, amount of Rs. 8,283/- for sale of power and Rs. 827/- towards electricity duty have been charged in this bill. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that this demand of Rs. 8,283/- and Rs. 827/- is illegal and unjustified as previously complainant was not consuming so much electricity as is evident from the copies of the bills dated 3.8.2007, 30.9.2006, 5.10.2007 and 1.4.2007 (Ex.C.3 to Ex.C.6) respectively. <br /> 8. To the contrary, Mr. Brar learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that impugned bill has been sent on average basis and average consumption has been considered as per Sales Regulations.<br /> 9. After considering rival contentions, we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. So far as the affidavit of the complainant is concerned, it stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Ragurit Singh Brar, SDO, PSEB, Talwandi Sabo. One of the prayers of the complainant is that new meter be installed in his premises. MCO was issued on 3.12.2007 as is clear from Ex.R.3. It was affected on 18.2.2008 and meter No. 403899 has been installed. Hence, this prayer becomes infructuous. <br /> 10. Previous meter in the premises of the complainant was burnt one. At the time of its removal, reading was 23842. Reading was taken on 12.11.2007 as is evident from copy of the ledger Ex.R.5 and the affidavit of Sh. Ragurit Singh Brar. While taking the meter reading, Meter Reader had observed that meter was burnt. Accordingly, 'R' code was shown regarding the status of the meter. Thereafter, meter reading was taken on 12.1.2008 by the Meter Reader as is clear from Ex.R.5. Again meter reading was 23842 and status of the meter was same. Accordingly, bill dated 1.12.2007 has been issued on average basis as per Sales Regulation No. 73.1.2. Substantive part of this Sales Regulation is reproduced as under :-<br /> “So far as charging the consumer for the period the meter remained inoperative is concerned, average consumption of last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption as under and higher of the two figures shall be charged to set the consumer's account right finally.”<br /> 11. Ex.R.6 is the copy of the Consumption Data. Meter was found burnt in November, 2007. In November, 2006, the consumption of the electricity by the complainant was 2094 units. Accordingly, consumption of 2094 units has been considered while sending the impugned bill dated 1.12.2007. This is in accordance with Sales Regulation No. 73.1.2. When it is so, impugned bill and the amount of Rs. 8,283/- and Rs. 827/- shown in it is legal and valid. Complainant has failed to show as to when his connection was disconnected. Even if it is taken that he has taken some Generator on rent, opposite parties are not liable to pay the rent, particularly when illegal disconnection of the electricity connection has not been proved and no notice has been given to the opposite parties before taking the alleged Generator on rent.<br /> 12. In the premises written above, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved. Accordingly, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> 28.02.2008 President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br />