| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 445 of 1.12.2017 Decided on: 6.8.2021 Binder Ram son of Rachna Ram, resident of village Ghalouri, Devigarh Road, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.(Powercom), Head Office: The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
- Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (Powercom),Sub Division, Sanaur, District Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Sachdev Vij, counsel for complainant. Sh.P.S.Walia,counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Binder Ram (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
- The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection vide a/c No.P255H311083W and has been receiving the electricity bills between Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per bi monthly and has been depositing the same regularly.
- It is averred that all of a sudden he received bill dated 11.11.2017 for Rs.22,144/- without explaining anything by the OPs. It is averred that the meter has been shown as OK and was sent for 368 units. The complainant approached OP No.2 and requested to treat the bill as illegal but in vain. It is further averred that the complainant paid electricity bill of Rs.2620/- on 13.1.2017 which was balance amount of Rs.3027/- of previous year. It is averred that the disputed bill issued by the OPs is illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. It is averred that the meter was never checked in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant. 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 complaint by giving directions to the OPs to declare the bill dated 11.11.2017 as illegal, null and void and demand of bill of Rs.22,144/- be quashed; to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs of complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OPs who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. It is admitted to the correct that the bill dated 11.11.2017 for Rs.22,144/- has been raised. It is pleaded that the meter of the consumer was reported to be defective by the Meter reader in 1/2016 with the reading as 246.Accordingly MCO No.132/131 dated 15.2.2016 was issued and the old meter was replaced by installing new meter having serial No.380253.The old meter having Sr.No.321560 was removed with the reading at 3149 units. The old removed meter was sent to M.E.Lab vide challan No.78 dated 25.1.2017 alongwith other removed meters having “D” code as per rules. It is further pleaded that the consumer was charged for 246 units on average basis in view of the “D”code. It is further alleged that the consumer was found liable to pay for the difference of units i.e. last reading at 246 and final reading 3149, which comes to 2903 units by the audit party. It is denied that the disputed bill sent by the OPs is illegal without any basis or criteria. It is further alleged that the meter being defective was sent to M.E.Lab as per rules for confirming the same to be defective and no other checking was done regarding its working etc, and in such cases the presence of the consumer is not required. It is further alleged that the amount already deposited by the complainant has been duly adjusted at the time of raising the demand in question. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Er.Ram Singh, AEE alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has been using the electricity connection in dispute and he was receiving consumption bills between Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/-bi monthly. The ld. counsel further argued that on 11.11.2017 the complainant all of sudden received bill for Rs.22,144/- which is beyond his imagination. The ld. counsel further argued that the bill is illegal, so the complaint be allowed.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that it is correct that bill of Rs.22,144/- was sent but the meter reader has reported defective meter and as such the MCO dated 15.2.2016 was issued. The ld. counsel further argued that the old meter was replaced with new meter and it was sent to ME Lab. After that ME Lab found meter to be defective and the complainant was sent correct bill according to the reading, so the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove this case Binder Singh has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CW1/A and he has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C1 is the disputed bill of Rs.22144/-,Ex.C3 is the bills of Rs.2672/- and Rs.1450/-.
- On the other hand Er.Ram Singh A.E.E. has tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the written reply,Ex.OP1 is the table on the basis of which the new meter reading was taken and bill was issued. The table shows the consumption of each and every month from 1/2016 till end of 1/2018.Ex.OP2 is calculation of the bill which was sent less to the consumer, Ex.OP3 is meter change order and the meter was changed due to defective code.
- So from the documents placed on the file by the PSPCL, it is clear that the meter was defective and it was replaced by the OPs and the same was sent to M.E.Lab and meter was removed due to ‘D’ code means defective as per rules.
- As per report of the OPs on the file, the consumer was liable to pay the difference i.e. last reading 246 and final reading 3199. Thus on the basis of the reading the old meter was sent to the M.E.Lab where the same was found defective. So it is clear from the documents of the OPs that the meter was replaced due to ‘D’ code and after that the same was removed and sent to ME Lab and after that the bill was sent. So there is no illegality on the part of the OPs in sending the bill and the complaint is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
ANNOUNCED DATED:6.8.2021 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
