PER:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant Prabhdeep Singh is practicing as an advocate in Civil Court Complex Patti as well as District Courts Tarn Taran. Late father of complainant namely Kulbir Singh was owner of one shop situated at Railway Road near Nikki Mandi Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. Father of the complainant has since died and after his death the above said shop is devolved upon to the complainant being his legal heir and this shop is the sole source of income/ livelihood of the complainant and whole of the family of the complainant is dependent upon the above said shop. An electric meter bearing its account No. 3000285526 Consumer No. T42MB230169A is installed in the above said shop of the complainant and the complainant has been using the above said electric connection since a long time in his above said shop and the complainant is paying all the electricity bills of the above said electric meter to opposite parties regularly and is beneficiary and hence the complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. Previously, the bill for the above said connection of shop was continuously sent to the complainant by the opposite parties in between Rs.300/- to Rs. 500/- and complainant made the bill amount of Rs. 320/- vide receipt dated 17.7.2014, Rs 360/- vide receipt dated 18.5.2015, Rs. 590 vide receipt dated 20.7.2015 and bill payment of Rs. 380/- vide receipt dated 6.6.2016 and the complainant has paid all the bills to the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not send the electric bills to the complainant qua the above said electric connection since 6.6.2016 and to this effect the complainant moved request letter dated 21.3.2017, 3.10.2017 and 5.3.2018 to the opposite party No. 3 with the submission to supply the electricity bill but no action was taken by the opposite party No. 3. On 30.8.2018 the opposite party No. 3 had issued one bill No. 00012018303013 amounting to Rs. 7,650/- having status D code i.e. defected meter. Thereafter, the complainant moved request letter dated 6.6.2019 to the opposite party No. 3 with the submission to rectify the above said bill as well as to replace the defected electric meter, but the opposite party No. 3 was remained deaf ear and no action was taken on the request of the complainant. Thereafter on 6.1.2019 the opposite party No. 3 had again issued one bill No. 00012019650141 to Rs. 13,690/- having status D Code i.e. defected meter. Again on 7.3.2019, the opposite party No. 3 had again issued one Bill No. 0040201976073 amounting to Rs. 31,140/- having status D Code i.e. defected meter. Again on 3.5.2019 the opposite party No. 3 had again issued one Bill No. 0040201931085 amounting to Rs. 32,120/- having status D Code i.e. defected meter. Thereafter, the complainant approached on 21.5.2019 to the opposite party No. 3 with the submission to rectify the above said electric bill and on this, the opposite party No. 3 had corrected the amount of above said bill No. 50010054279 by way of decreasing from Rs. 32,275/- to Rs. 17,918/- but the opposite party No. 3 did not correct the total amount of previous bills during the defect of meter i.e. D code. Again on 4.7.2019 the opposite party No. 3 issued one bill No. 0587201942055 amounting to Rs. 19,870/- having status D Code i.e. defected meter. Thereafter the complainant moved request letter dated 5.7.2019 to the opposite party No. 3 with the submission to rectify the above said bill as well as to replace the defected electric meter and to rectify the entire amount of electric bills which were sent to the complainant during D code defective meter complainant but the opposite party No. 3 was remained deaf ear and no action was taken on the request of the complainant. all the above mentioned electric bills are illegal, null and void, against law, against facts, time barred, without any prior notice with complete details and intimation to the complainant. The same is against the standing instructions of the Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited. The complainant approached to the opposite parties many times and requested to correct the above mentioned electric bills as well as to replace the defected electric meter and to refund the entire amount of electric bills but the opposite party has refused to accept the request of the complainant. The complainant has prayed that he opposite party may be directed to
- Withdraw all the above mentioned bills having status ‘D’ Code raised on the complainant by the opposite party without any right, title or interest to claim the said amount illegally.
- To replace the electric meter from the shop of complainant.
- Damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- be awarded in favour of complainant and against the opposite party for unnecessary harassment, inconvenience, agony and mental tension suffered by the complainant at the hands of the opposite party
- To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant as placed on record self attested copy of affidavit Ex. C-1 Photostat copies of receipts Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-5, self attested copy of application dated 21.3.2017 Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of application dated 3.10.2017 Ex. C-7, self attested copy of application dated 5.3.2018 Ex. C-8, Self attested copy of bill dated 30.8.2018 Ex. C-9, Self attested cop of application dated 6.6.2019 Ex. C-10, Self attested copies of bills Ex. C-11 to Ex. C-15, self attested copy of application dated 5.7.2019 Ex. C-16.
2 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands and has concealed the true facts from this Commission. As such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief from this Commission. The complainant has been billed on average basis as his meter was defective. The complainant is in arrear of bill. The meter is to be got checked from M.E. Lab Verka which is being sent to ME Lab Verka and bills are issued to complainant with D Code i.e. defective on average basis. His six months account was overhauled as per Supply code and bills are being issued on average basis. The complainant is liable for the same. This commission has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties and there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. As per allegations in Para No. 2 of the complaint the complainant is alleging that he is practicing as an advocate at Civil Courts Complex Patti as well as District Courts Tarn Taran and on the other hands in this para of the complaint, the complainant is alleging that the shop where the connection in question is installed is sole source of income/ livelihood of the complainant and whole of the family of the complainant is dependent upon the above said shop. The shop where the connection in question is installed is sole source of income/ livelihood of the complainant and whole of the family of the complainant is dependent upon the above said shop. The shop where the connection in question is installed is not sole source of income of the complainant as per averments made in Para No. 2 of the complaint. Connection in question is installed in the shop of complainant. The bill dated 4.2.2019 issued by the opposite party amounting to Rs. 19,870/- is legal and valid one and the complainant is liable for the same to the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of SDO Ex. OPs/1, Meter record/ Unit ( 2 leave) Ex. OPs/2,
3 The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite parties and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint. Alongwith the rejoinder, the complainant has placed on record receipt dated 11.9.2019 Ex. C-17, Bill dated 7.9.2019 Ex. C-18.
4 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant Prabhdeep Singh is practicing as an advocate in Civil Court Complex Patti as well as District Courts Tarn Taran. Late father of complainant namely Kulbir Singh was owner of one shop situated at Railway Road near Nikki Mandi Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran. Father of the complainant has since died and after his death the above said shop is devolved upon to the complainant being his legal heir and this shop is the sole source of income/ livelihood of the complainant and whole of the family of the complainant is dependent upon the above said shop. He further contended that an electric meter bearing its account No. 3000285526 Consumer No. T42MB230169A is installed in the above said shop of the complainant and the complainant has been using the above said electric connection since a long time in his above said shop and the complainant is paying all the electricity bills of the above said electric meter to opposite parties regularly and is beneficiary and hence the complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. He further contended that previously, the bill for the above said connection of shop was continuously sent to the complainant by the opposite parties in between Rs.300/- to Rs. 500/- and complainant made the bill amount of Rs. 320/- vide receipt dated 17.7.2014 Ex. C-2, Rs 360/- vide receipt dated 18.5.2015 Ex. C-3, Rs. 590/- vide receipt dated 20.7.2015 Ex. C-4 and bill payment of Rs. 380/- vide receipt dated 6.6.2016 Ex. C-5 and the complainant has paid all the bills to the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not send the electric bills to the complainant qua the above said electric connection since 6.6.2016 and to this effect the complainant moved request letter dated 21.3.2017 Ex. C-6, letter dated 3.10.2017 Ex. C-7 and letter dated 5.3.2018 Ex. C-8 to the opposite party No. 3 with the submission to supply the electricity bill but no action was taken by the opposite party No. 3. On 30.8.2018 the opposite party No. 3 had issued one bill Ex. C-9 bearing No. 00012018303013 amounting to Rs. 7,650/- having status D code i.e. defected meter. Thereafter, the complainant moved request letter dated 6.6.2019 Ex. C-10 to the opposite party No. 3 with the submission to rectify the above said bill as well as to replace the defected electric meter, but the opposite party No. 3 was remained deaf ear and no action was taken on the request of the complainant. Thereafter on 6.1.2019 the opposite party No. 3 had again issued one bill No. 00012019650141 to Rs. 13,690/- Ex. C-11 having status D Code i.e. defected meter. Again on 7.3.2019, the opposite party No. 3 had again issued one Bill Ex. C-12 bearing No. 0040201976073 amounting to Rs. 31,140/- having status D Code i.e. defected meter. Again on 3.5.2019 the opposite party No. 3 had again issued one Bill Ex. C-13 bearing No. 0040201931085 amounting to Rs. 32,120/- having status D Code i.e. defected meter. Thereafter, the complainant approached on 21.5.2019 to the opposite party No. 3 with the submission to rectify the above said electric bill and on this, the opposite party No. 3 had corrected the amount of above said bill No. 50010054279 by way of decreasing from Rs. 32,275/- to Rs. 17,918/- but the opposite party No. 3 did not correct the total amount of previous bills during the defect of meter i.e. D code. Again on 4.7.2019 the opposite party No. 3 issued one bill Ex. C-15 bearing No. 0587201942055 amounting to Rs. 19,870/- having status D Code i.e. defected meter. Thereafter the complainant moved request letter dated 5.7.2019 Ex. C-19 to the opposite party No. 3 with the submission to rectify the above said bill as well as to replace the defected electric meter and to rectify the entire amount of electric bills which were sent to the complainant during ‘D’ code defective meter complainant but of no avail and he prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
6 Ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands and has concealed the true facts from this Commission. As such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief from this Commission. The complainant has been billed on average basis as his meter was defective. The complainant is in arrear of bill. The meter is to be got checked from M.E. Lab Verka which is being sent to ME Lab Verka and bills are issued to complainant with D Code i.e. defective on average basis. His six months account was overhauled as per Supply code and bills are being issued on average basis. The complainant is liable for the same. This commission has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties and there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. As per allegations in Para No. 2 of the complaint the complainant is alleging that he is practicing as an advocate at Civil Courts Complex Patti as well as District Courts Tarn Taran and on the other hands in this para of the complaint, the complainant is alleging that the shop where the connection in question is installed is sole source of income/ livelihood of the complainant and whole of the family of the complainant is dependent upon the above said shop. The shop where the connection in question is installed is sole source of income/ livelihood of the complainant and whole of the family of the complainant is dependent upon the above said shop. The shop where the connection in question is installed is not sole source of income of the complainant as per averments made in Para No. 2 of the complaint. Connection in question is installed in the shop of complainant. The bill dated 4.2.2019 issued by the opposite party amounting to Rs.19,870/- is legal and valid one and the complainant is liable for the same to the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.
7 We have heard the contentions raised by Ld. counsels for the parties. The case of the complainant is that he is receiving bill in between 300/- to 500/- and to support his version, the complainant has placed on record receipts Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-5 which are Rs. 320/-, 360/-, 590/-, 380/- respectively. As such it shows that the complainant is receiving the bill in between Rs. 320/- to 590/-. On the other hands, the case of the opposite parties is that the complainant has been billed on average basis as his meter was defective. The complainant is in arrear of bill. The meter is to be got checked from M.E. Lab Verka which is being sent to ME Lab Verka and bills are issued to complainant with D Code i.e. defective on average basis. His six months account was overhauled as per Supply code and bills are being issued on average basis. To support their version, the opposite parties have placed on record one document Ex. R-2 which shows that the meter of the complainant remained defective w.e.f. 30.8.2018 to 19.6.2019 i.e. near about 10 months. The meter of the complainant was not changed for a long time. The opposite parties are claiming the disputed amount from the complainant on average basis. As per 'Electricity Supply Code' and 'Related Matters Regulations 2007', wherein Clause 21.5.2 itself gave a direction to the employee of the Punjab State Corporation that “in case of dead or stop meter the accounts of the consumer shall be overhauled for the period meter remained defective/dead stop, subject to maximum period of six months”, but in this case, the OP has been charged on the basis of average bill for more than six months, which is again against the regulations 2007 and in support of this observation, we like to made reliance upon a pronouncement of our Hon'ble State Commission, cited in 2003(1) C. P. C. 310, titled as “Shingara Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Another”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-
“ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 15 & 12, Electricity bill, amount of electricity bill was demanded from 1997 to 1999 on average basis, It is now settled law that maximum period for which bill can be raised in respect of a defective meter under Electricity Act is 6 months and no more, Order of District Forum quashed, Case remanded for fresh decision keeping into view above mentioned observations.”
8 During the course of arguments, the complainant has placed on record several electricity bills and the status of meter is OK. How, it can be possible that without changing the defective meter it has become OK in status. The opposite party cannot raise the bills without testing the meter in ME Lab.
9 From the above detailed discussion, it has emerged that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and as such, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and last bill under challenge dated 4.7.2019 Ex. C-15 is hereby set-aside and opposite parties are directed not to recover any amount from the complainant for the aforesaid period. The amount, if any, deposited by the complainant during the pendency of the present complaint either return to the complainant or to adjust in the further bills. Complainant is also entitled to Rs.4,000/-/- (Rs.Four Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 3,500/-/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
29.03.2022
