Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Near F.C.I. Godowns, Muradpura Tarn Taran (Punjab)

Consumer Complaint No : 13 of 2016

Date of Institution : 02.02.2016

Date of Decision : 08.09.2016

Gurpinder Singh son of Joga Singh resident of village Aima Kalan, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.

...Complainant

Versus

1        S.D.O. PSPCL, Sub Division Jhabal

2        The XEN, Rural Division, PSPCL, Tarn Taran

3        The Chairman PSPCL, Patiala

...Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12, 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Quorum:               Sh. A.K. Mehta, President

Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member

For Complainant                     Sh. Gurpidner Singh inperson

For Opposite Party No. 1       Sh. K.M. Gupta Advocate

for Opposite Party No. 2                  Exparte vide order dated 10.3.2016

For Opposite Party No. 3       Exparte vide order dated 17.3.2016

A.K.Mehta President

1        Sh. Gurpinder Singh filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against S.D.O P.S.P.C.L. Sub Division Jhabal etc. (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of inadequacy in service, inefficiency and defective management with prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to quash the amount of Rs. 16,730/- mentioned in bill dated 1.1.2016 and also to return Rs. 8,000/- paid by the complainant to opposite parties and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment etc. and opposite parties be restrained from disconnecting the electric connection of complainant till decision of the complaint.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is residing in his house situated at village Aima Kalan, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran where an electric connection is installed under account/ meter No. T21/MN470883K and he is paying the bills regularly for electricity consumed in the house and as such, he is consumer of the opposite parties; that average electricity bill of the complainant is Rs. 1,900/- to Rs. 2,000/- and meter is installed by opposite parties in the street outside the house of the complainant in a box which is locked; that the complainant received bill dated 6.11.2015 for Rs. 17,310/- which was excessive and as such, the complainant immediately contacted the opposite party No. 1 but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and then the complainant was asked to wait for next bill; that the complainant again received next electricity bill dated 1.1.2016 in which Rs. 16,730/- were demanded under the head ‘other expenses’ and complainant again went to opposite parties and inquired about the illegal demand but the opposite parties could not explain the said amount and asked the complainant to come after 2/3 days; that the complainant again went to the opposite parties after 3 days and asked about demand of Rs. 16,730/- (wrongly written as Rs. 16,750/-) in the bill dated 1.1.2016 but the opposite parties clearly told the complainant that the complainant has to pay the bill for the whole amount mentioned in the bill; that the complainant contacted the opposite parties many times and requested to accept the genuine demand and to quash Rs. 16,730/- from bill dated 1.1.2016 but the opposite parties flatly refused to accept the genuine demand of the complainant and asked the complainant to pay Rs. 8,000/- immediately, otherwise, his electricity connection will be disconnected and due to fear of disconnection of electricity connection, the complainant paid Rs. 8,000/- vide receipt No. 94 dated 8.1.2016 and again requested the opposite parties to quash the remaining amount of bill but the Opposite Party No. 1 flatly refused to do so and asked the complainant to pay the outstanding amount mentioned in bill dated 1.1.2016 and threatened to disconnect the electricity connection in case the amount is not deposited; that even thereafter complainant requested the opposite parties many times but the opposite parties could not give satisfactory reply and was still threatening to pay balance amount of bill dated 1.1.2016; that the opposite parties are guilty of malfunctioning, inadequacy in service, defective management and harassment by demanding illegal amount under the head other expenses and complainant requested the opposite parties to quash illegal demand but with no effect. Hence complaint was filed.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was sent to opposite parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed power of attorney. Opposite party No. 2 did not appear inspite of service and was proceeded against exparte vide detailed order dated 10.3.2016. Opposite Party No. 3 was also declared to have been duly served through registered cover but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3 and consequently, Opposite Party No. 3 was also proceeded exparte vide order dated 17.3.2016.

4        Opposite Party No. 1 filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed against non-existing opposite party as there is no Rural Division of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Tarn Taran and the complaint is liable to be dismissed; that checking of the electric connection in dispute was conducted on 19.7.2015 and it was found that meter has been totally burnt including its block; that sanctioned load of the complainant was 1.96 KW but at the time of checking of meter, the total load was found to be 3.986 KW and accordingly checking report was prepared at the spot and representative of the consumer signed the same in token of its correctness and also received the copy of the same and burnt meter was changed on 23.7.2015; that as per rules, the consumption for the last 6 months was calculated on the basis of  Load x Days x  Hours  x  Factors and the same comes to 1696 units and consumption charges for the first 1200 units were calculated at the rate of Rs. 4.68 and remaining 496 units at the rate of Rs. 6.26 i.e. the rate of tariff applicable at the relevant time and electricity duty was included and after including load surcharge and Rs. 520/- as costs of burnt meter, it comes to Rs. 13,514/-  and after deducting Rs. 1,239/- which has been paid by the complainant during last 6 months, the due amount of consumption for 6 months was found Rs. 12,275/-. On merits, the complaint was also contested on the same lines as were taken in the Preliminary Objections. It was asserted that a notice bearing No. 1338 was sent to the complainant on 20.7.2015 alongwith calculation sheets giving full details of amount claimed and this notice as well as calculation sheet was received by the complainant as these were not returned by the Postal Authorities as un-delivered.  It was asserted that the amount claimed by the opposite party is not by way of penalty but is claimed as consumption of energy under the rules applicable in such like cases. It was denied if complainant paid the amount of  Rs. 8,000/- under any compulsion, rather this amount was paid voluntarily against official receipt and there is no rule for quashing the amount of consumption charges, though in case of default of payment of due amount, the connection can validly be disconnected; that the amount is claimed under the rules and complainant is liable to make the payment and complainant has no right or cause of action to file the complaint. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

5        Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in to evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith  documents Ex. C2 to C-8, affidavit of Joga Singh Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence and thereafter Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Vijay Kapoor SDO Ex. OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex. OP1/2 to Ex. OP1/4 and closed the evidence.

6        We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for Opposite party No. 1 and also gone through the evidence and documents produced by the parties.

7        The complainant argued his case on the same allegations as were taken in the complaint. At the time of arguments, the complainant contended that meter was installed outside the house and when the meter was burnt, information was given to the J.E and thereafter direct electricity line was started and meter was disconnected. He contended that he was not to pay Rs. 8,000/- but the said amount was paid as opposite parties threatened to disconnect the electricity lines. He contended that there is no allegation that complainant has committed theft of electricity in memo No. 1338 dated 20.7.2015, sent to the complainant and as such, the electricity bill in question is illegal and is excessive and is liable to be quashed and opposite parties are required to be directed to quash the amount of Rs. 16,730/- as mentioned in the bill dated 1.1.2016 and also to return Rs. 8,000/- paid by complainant and opposite parties should be burdened with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment of complainant and complainant is also entitled to other relief mentioned in the complaint.

8        Ld. Counsel for opposite party No. 1 also argued the case on the same pleas as were taken in the written version. He contended that connection in dispute was checked on 19.7.2015 and meter alongwith its block was found burnt and then load of complainant was checked and found to be excessive from the sanctioned load. He contended that electric connection of the complainant was overhauled as per Punjab Govt. Gazette notification and rule 21.4 and 21.5. He contended that as the load of the complainant was excessive, therefore, consumption was calculated as per formula L x D x H x F and calculation sheet alongwith letter was sent to the complainant giving detail of the demand raised by the opposite parties. He contended that the meter was changed on 21.7.2015/23.9.2015 as checking was made on 20.7.2015. He contended that demand raised by the opposite parties is legal and correct and as per rules and is not liable to be quashed rather complaint filed by the complainant is wrong and is liable to be dismissed.

9        There is no dispute between the parties that electricity connection is installed in the house of complainant and meter is installed outside the house of the complainant. However the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed material facts. He has nowhere mentioned or alleged in the complaint that the meter has burnt totally including its blocks. Rather the complainant has simply alleged that his average consumption is about Rs. 1,900/- to Rs. 2,000/-, whereas he received excessive bill vide bill dated 6.11.2015 and 1.1.2016. Opposite parties appeared in the Forum and filed written version on 11.4.2016 stating therein that on checking, electric meter of the complainant was found totally burnt including its block and electric load of the complainant was found more than its sanctioned load and thereafter, the consumption was calculated on the basis of LxDxHxF formula and calculation sheet aongwith letter was received by the representative of complainant under his signatures. However, complainant has concealed all these facts. Even after filing the written reply by the opposite parties, the complainant filed his affidavit Ex. C-1 but again on the same lines as were taken in the complaint and did not disclose about the burning of meter or the checking of connection in dispute conducted by the opposite parties, though opposite parties have proved checking report dated 20.7.2015 which also bears the signatures of Joga Singh representative of complainant who is father of the complainant and is also appearing in the complaint as representative of the complainant and complainant has also given special power of attorney to Joga Singh. As such, the checking report was prepared by opposite parties in the presence of representative of complainant and representative also signed the checking report which shows that excess load was running in the premises of complainant than the sanctioned load. Moreover, there is only allegation of the complainant that electric bill sent to him is excessive, but complainant concealed the fact that meter has been totally burnt including its block and due to this reason, the connection was overhauled.  Later on Joga Singh representative of complainant also filed affidavit and he admitted in Para No. 6 of the affidavit that he came to know from the reply of opposite party that meter was burnt but again he contended in the affidavit that in this eventuality, opposite party can take the cost of replaced meter and can charge the bill as per reading of meter which shows that Joga Singh indirectly admitted that meter was burnt. Otherwise also complainant has paid Rs. 8,000/- as part payment of electric bill in dispute and there is no evidence that he paid this amount under pretest or under some coercion. On the contrary,  opposite parties have proved the checking report Ex. O.Ps. 1/2 giving the calculation about the load. The  Opposite parties have also proved letter dated 20.7.2015 Ex. O.Ps.1/3 and calculation sheet Ex. O.Ps.1/4 and contended that this letter and calculation sheet has been sent to complainant through post and has not been received back which gives rise to presumption that complainant has received the same. Otherwise also, the complainant in order to succeed in the complaint is to prove on the file that the services rendered by the opposite parties were deficient and excessive bill was not according to consumption but complainant has not led any evidence on the file to show that the services rendered by the opposite parties were deficient in nature. Rather, opposite party has produced annexure 8 of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply code and Related matters), Regulations, 2007 vide which consumption is to be calculated vide LDHF formula and rule 21.4 (g) (ii) of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply code and Related matters), Regulations, 2007 provide the procedure for overhauling of electricity account in case of burnt meter and rule 21.5 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply code and Related matters), Regulations, 2007 provides that the electricity account of consumer in such cases can be overhauled for last six months and opposite parties have also overhauled the electric account of the complainant for the preceding 6 months from the date of checking and as such this forum is of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove on the file that services rendered by opposite parties were deficient in nature or the bill issued by opposite parties is excessive and is not in accordance with rules due to deficient services.

                                                                        (A.K.Mehta)                                                                            President             

                                      Jaswinder Kaur

                                      (Member)