DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 399 of 16.10.2017

                                      Decided on: 6.8.2021

Amir Chand son of Chhanku Ram, resident of Ward No.1, Panj Peer Road, Amargarh Mohalla, Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., HO, The Mall, Patiala through its M.D.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,PSPCL, Samana.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Asheen Khan, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.P.S.Walia, counsel for OPs.                                              

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Amir Chand (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is holder of domestic electric connection bearing a/c No.CF-88/0198 and belongs to Scheduled caste category and as such  is getting the benefit of 400 units free electricity.
3. It is averred that the complainant has been regularly paying the electricity consumption bills. It is further averred that the old electricity meter of the said connection was running fast and the complainant moved an application dated 28.2.2014 for the change of the meter, which was changed. It is further averred that after the change of the meter, the complainant has been paying the charges of consumption bills regularly. It is further averred that the complainant received bill dated 14.9.2016 for an amount of Rs.38590/-.The complainant approached the OP who told that the audit party checked the account of the complainant and found the alleged amount due. It is averred that no notice was given to the complainant in this regard nor he was called by the audit party while calculating the alleged amount and also no demand notice was sent to the complainant.
4. It is averred that the complainant approached the Disputes Settlement Authority, Patiala on 18.1.2016 where he challenged the bill in question. He was asked to deposit Rs.11250/- but inspite of that the OPs issued the bill dated 12.11.2016 for Rs.40,800/- showing Rs.294/- current charges, Rs.30,311/- as sundry charges and Rs.8654 as previous balance. After receiving the bill dated 12.11.2016, the complainant approached the OPs to resolve the matter and he was asked to not to deposit of the amount of the bill dated 14.9.2016 and 12.11.2016 and was assured that the next bill will be sent after correcting the amount.
5. It is averred that thereafter the complainant received the bill dated 14.1.2017 for Rs.11,250/- and the complainant deposited Rs.9500/- and also deposited Rs.1750/- on 21.3.2017.Thereafter the complainant received the bill dated 8.3.2017 in which the current charges were shown as zero but an amount of Rs.11320/- was demanded from the complainant. Thereafter the complainant received the bills dated 15.5.2017 for Rs.11390/-, 15.7.2017 for Rs.11450/- in which current charges were zero .It is averred that these bills were not deposited by the complainant.
6. It is further averred that the complainant received bill dated 18.9.2017 for Rs.32360/- in which sundry charges were shown as Rs.18964/-, previous balance Rs.9690/- and current charges as Rs.1590/-.It is averred that the complainant time and again requested the OPs to correct the bill but of no vain.
7. It is averred that the complainant has already deposited the amount of Rs.11250/- against the bill dated 14.9.2016 as was directed by the Disputes Settlement Authority and the OPs are not liable to recover the amount of other bills which the OPs demanded from him and are threatened to disconnect the electricity connection. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to withdraw the bills dated 12.11.2016, 8.3.2017, 15.5.2017, 15.7.2017 and 18.9.2017 and to issue the correct bill on the basis of actual consumption and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
8. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. It is pleaded that the meter of the complainant was removed vide MCO No.49/7432 on 10.4.2014.The reading of the removed meter was 25340 while the bill was done with the reading at 20730.As such the bill of 4210 units after adjusting 400 units from 4610 units was issued. It is further pleaded that the consumer has been charged for difference of readings of the electricity consumed by the complainant which was detected by the audit party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12 and closed the evidence.
10. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OP1 affidavit of Er.Ravinder Singh AEE alongwith documents Exs.OP2 to OP6 and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection and as such he is a consumer of the OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste category and he is getting the benefit of 400 units free electricity. The ld. counsel further argued that the electricity meter was running fast and the complainant moved an application on 28.2.2014 for changing the meter and the after change of the meter the complainant has been depositing the consumption charges regularly.
13. The ld. counsel further argued that all of sudden the complainant received bill of Rs.38590/-.After that he approached the OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant also approached Disputes Settlement Committee on 18.10.2016 and he was asked to deposit Rs.11250/- and he deposited the same. After that bill of Rs.40800/- was given to him which including Rs.30,311/- as sundry charges. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant received the bill dated 14.1.2017 for Rs.11250/- and he deposited Rs.9500/- and Rs.1750/- vide receipt dated 21.3.2017.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant received bill dated 8.3.2017 and Rs.11320/- was demanded. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant received bill dated 15.5.2017 for Rs.11390/- and bill dated 15.7.2017 for Rs.11450/-.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant also received bill dated 18.9.2017 for Rs.32360/- which shows sundry charges of Rs.18964/-plus Rs.9690/- previous balance and Rs.1590/- as current charges. The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant has already deposited Rs.11250/- with the OPs against the bill dated 14.9.2016 and is not liable to deposit the amount as demanded by the OPs. So the complaint be allowed.
14. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that in fact the meter of the complainant was removed vide MCO on 10.4.2014 since the complainant had challenged the meter. The reading of the old meter was 25340 and the bill was done for 20730.The ld. counsel further argued that consumer was  charged for 4210 units after adjusting 400 units out of 4610 units.The  ld. counsel further argued that the amount was charged only of consumed electricity by the complainant. So complaint be dismissed.
15. Sh.Amir Chand has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint,Ex.C1 is an application filed by the complainant for changing the meter on 28.2.2014,Ex.C2 is the applicant sent by Amir Chand regarding excess billing of Rs.38590/- and he has requested to send his case to Disputes Settlement Committee,Ex.C3 is bill of Rs.3150/-, Ex.C4 is bill of Rs.38408/-, Ex.C5 is the receipt vide which amount of Rs.9500/-was deposited on 3.3.2017,Ex.C6 is the receipt vide which amount of Rs.1750/- was deposited on 21.3.2017.
16. So it is clear that the complainant has  deposited both bills of 9500/- and Rs.1750/- and he has requested that his case be filed before Disputes Settlement Committee and before coming to Disputes Settlement Committee the consumer has to deposit 1 3^rd amount of the disputed bill but there is no order on the file produced that any decision was taken by the Disputes Settlement Committee.Ex.C8 is the bill of Rs.11250/-,Ex.C9 is the bill of Rs.11320/-,Ex.C10 is the bill of Rs.11386/-,Ex.C11 is the bill which is not readable ,Ex.C12 is the bill dated 18.9.2017 for Rs.32355/-.
17. On the other hand on behalf of OPs Ravinder Singh, AEE has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OP1 and he has deposed as per the written reply,Ex.OP2 is a letter written by Amir Chand for sending his case before Disputes Settlement Committee,Ex.OP3 is bill dated 14.9.2016 for Rs.38590/-,Ex.OP4 is the table  regarding the reading wherein in the bill dated 1/2016 sundry charges has been shown as 30313,Ex.OP5 is an audit report sent to AEE Samana City and amount chargeable from the complainant was Rs.30443/-.
18. From the documents it is clear that the application was given by the complainant for sending his case to Disputes Settlement Committee and he deposited 1 3^rd amount of the disputed bill but there is no order on the file which can show that the case was sent further to Disputes Settlement Committee.
19. From the documents of the OPs they having an audit report Ex.OP5 and auditor has fixed the amount as Rs.30443/-. It is not mentioned in this letter sent by the auditor to SDO Samana City that the less amount was charged from Sh.Amir Chand and meter change was done and there is difference of 4610 units out of which 400 units were exempted and total disputed bill of 4210 units was charged.
20. So it is clear that the dispute was arose between the complainant and the OPs in the year 2014 and it continued till 2017 and from the documents produced on file by the OPs it is clear that there was defect in the meter and lesser reading was charged and the complainant has already deposited more than Rs.11000/-from the bill in question. So the complainant has to pay the bill of the electricity consumed by him.
21. So from the documents placed on file no prima facie case is made out and the complaint is dismissed. Parties are to bear their own costs.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:6.8.2021            

                                         Vinod Kumar Gulati     Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                                 Member                        President