New Complaint No.252 of 2023.
Date of Institution:27.10.2023.
Old Complaint No:349 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 23.08.2018.
Date of order:04.01.2024.
Ram Singh Son of S. Sarwan Singh, C/o Gurminder Ice Factory, Village Maan Kaur Singh, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143521.
.....Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Sub Urban Near Arora Hospital, BSF Road, Gurdaspur – 143521, through its R.A. and S.D.O.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Jail Road Gurdaspur – 143521, through its Executive Engineer.
……..Opposite parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Munishwar Nagpal, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Rajneesh Kaushal, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
Ram Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against P.S.P.C.Ltd. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the Sole proprietor of M/s Gurminder Ice Factory, Village Maan Kaur Singh, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. It was pleaded that the complainant is the holder of Electric Connection in his personal name having Meter No. 16296295 with sanctioned load of 43.856 KW and Contract A/c No. 3000323626 and as such is availing the services of the opposite parties. The complainant is earning his livelihood from the above mentioned Ice Factory. It was further pleaded that the complainant received a Bill dated 14.07.2018 having Bill No. 1001665254 for the consumption of 21929 Units for 26 days amounting to Rs.1,43,720/- with the status of the meter as "D" Code that means the meter is defective. It is pertinent to mention here that in the above mentioned Bill showing "D" Code the meter reading was also shown. Old Status 272214.300 and New Status 294143.00 and as such the consumption of 21929 units were shown. It was further pleaded that how the new meter reading were mentioned when the meter reading was defective. These meter readings were taken on 31.05.2018 (Old) and 26.06.2018 (New). The readings mentioned in this bill are false, frivolous and factious and entered as per their own whims. It was further pleaded that the complainant approached the opposite parties in their office and brought the Discrepancies in the notice of the officers of the opposite parties who demanded the amount of Rs.1,43,720/- from the complainant with the assurance that in the next bill the discrepancies will be removed and any excess charged will be adjusted. The complainant as per their demand paid Rs.1,43,720/- on dated 20.07.2018 vide receipt No. 211400102227. The opposite parties changed the meter on 15/16 of July, 2018. It was further pleaded that to the utter surprise of the complainant, the complainant again received a bill dated 16.08.2018 having Bill No. 1001716233 with status of the meter shown as "O" that means OK for 34 days with the reading Old Status 294143 and New Status 311390 (KVAH) of New meter and Old Status 200 and New status 7410 (KVAH) showing the consumption of 17247 KVAH and 7210 KVAH respectively and demanded Rs.1,61,680/- to be paid upto 27.08.2018. It was further pleaded that charging Rs.1,43,730/- with the meter status "D" in the Bill No. 1001665254 and raising the illegal demand of Rs.1,61,680/- with the status "O" for consumption of electricity 17247 Units KVAH and 7210 Units KVAH Total 24457 Units KVAH for 34 days is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that the meter readings shown in the column of new meter i.e. Old Status 294143 dated 26.06.2018 and New Status as 311390 dated 30.07.2018 are false, frivolous and factious entered with their own whims. It was further pleaded that the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties, but no official of the opposite parties gave any heed to the request of the complainant. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to correct the bill dated 14.07.2018 amounting to Rs.1,43,720/- charged from the complainant against Status "D" of the meter shown in the bill and also showing the meter readings and also to correct consumption reading shown in the bill dated 16.08.2018 demanding of Rs.1,61,680/- showing status of the meter as "O". It is further prayed that the excess amount charged in the bill dated 14.07.2013 be refunded to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and the opposite parties be burdened with Rs.50,000/- as physical harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the demand of Rs.1,61,680 /- vide bill dated 16.08.2018 and Rs.1,43,720/- dated 14.07.2018 of the complainant are legal and genuine demand as it is based on the actual consumption of the complainant. It was pleaded that this Hon'ble Commission has no Jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint of the complainant as the electric connection of the complainant is of MS (Medium Supply) category. It was further pleaded that the present complaint of the complainant is of Civil nature as he has deposited the bill amounting to Rs.1,43,720/- dated 14.07.2018 suo moto hence this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The complainant has not come to the court with clean hands as he has suppressed some material facts from this Hon'ble Court and the complainant has filed a false, frivolous complaint and having no merits, be dismissed with costs. It was further pleaded that the bill amounting to Rs.1,43,720/- dated 14.07.2018 was issued to the complainant on his average consumption as the said bill was of ‘D’ Code. The complainant deposited the said bill dated 14.07.2018 suo moto. The complainant never approached the opposite parties in their office nor gave any assurance to the complainant that any excess charges will be adjusted in his next bill. The said bill was issued to him on the basis of his consumption for the last year same month according to the electricity supply code Clause 21.5.2 (a) & (c) of the PSPCL which is to be charged from the complainant from the period from 26.06.2018 to 18.07.2018 i.e. defective period because the electric meter of the complainant was changed on 19.07.2018. It was further pleaded that the said bill was for 22 days i.e. consumption calculated as 17247 units as per the calculation sheet which is collected from PSPCL Patiala. Thus the average consumption of the electric meter of the complainant for the period from 26.06.2018 to 18.07.2018 for 22 days comes to 17247 and the actual consumption of the new electric meter was from 200 to 7410 units i.e. 7210 units for the period from 19.07.2018 to 30.07.2018. So the total consumption for the period from 26.06.2018 to 30.07.2018 comes to 24457 units i.e. 17247 + 7210 = 24457 units. Hence, the complainant is bound to pay for it. So, the bill in dispute is legal and genuine bill. It was further pleaded that in fact, when a bill dated 14.07.2018 amounting to Rs.1,43,720/- with the status of the meter as 'D' Code was issued to the complainant then the opposite party No. 1 issued an M.C.O. and which was effected on 19.07.2018. The electric meter of the complainant was changed on 19.07.2018 by Jatinder Kumar J.E. of the opposite party No. 1 in the presence of the complainant. It was further pleaded that the old electric meter of the complainant was removed and packed and properly sealed on 19.07.2018 in the presence of the complainant who put his signatures on the packed and sealed electric meter and also on the consent letter to open the electric meter in the absence of the complainant. Then his electric meter was sent to the M.E. Lab. Gurdaspur on dated 07.08.2018 and his meter was checked and it was found that the push button of the electric meter of the complainant was not working and the said report was also sent to the S.D.O. M.E. Lab. Jalandhar for further necessary action. It was further pleaded that the M.E. Lab. Jalandhar also tested the electric meter of the complainant and found that the Scroll buttons are non-operational and the meter was defective one. So it is very much clear that both the bills dated 14.07.2018 and 16.08.2018 are legal and genuine bills which were based on the actual consumption of the complainant as the consumption of the complainant is very high in the summer season which can be read from his electric bills and payment list for the last about two years. It was further pleaded that the complainant has deposited the next bills dated 14.09.2018 amounting to Rs.72,340/- and bill dated 16.10.2018 amounting to Rs.59,940/-. These electric bills are of less consumption as these bills are of off season i.e. winter season. So the complainant is bound to pay the above said bills in dispute. There is not any kind of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ram Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Papesh Kumar, (S.D.O, P.S.P.C. Ltd, Sub – Urban, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-17.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
9. As enumerated above the complainant filed the present complaint regarding disputed two electricity bills dated 14.07.2018 and 16.08.2018 which are placed at Ex.C1 and Ex.C3 alleging that amount charged on average basis is wrong and illegal and prayed to get these bills corrected from the opposite parties.
10. These electricity bills are related to Gurminder Ice Factor bearing A/c No.3000323626 with sanctioned load/demand of 39.470 KW/43.856 KVA. The complainant has mentioned in para No.1 of the complaint that he is sole proprietor and running Ice Factory for earning his livelihood. So, as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 section 2 (7) (ii) (a) the present complaint has been considered for adjudication in this Commission.
11. The complainant has further pleaded that he has already paid the electricity bill dated 14.07.2018 amounting to Rs.1,43,720/- as per deposit receipt at Ex.C2 and 50% of the other disputed bill dated 16.08.2018 amounting to Rs.80,840/- vide copy of receipt placed alongwith Ex.C3.
12. Opposite parties in their written statement and affidavit of S.D.O. PSPCL denied all the allegations and stated that these bills have been issued as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL on the basis of regulation 21.5.2 of Supply Code 2014 placed at Ex.OP-17. It was further pleaded by the opposite parties that the meter of this electrical connection was defective due to non operation of the push button/scroll as per M.E. Lab. report at Ex.OP-5 and replaced on 19.07.2018.
13. As per Ex.OP-2 the said meter was replaced on 19.07.2018 with new meter so electricity bill dated 14.07.2018 for the period from 31.05.2018 to 26.06.2018 of 26 days was issued on average basis taking the consumption as per electricity bill of same month for the last year i.e. 18073 KVAH, by raising it proportionately with respect to increase in load which became 21929 KVAH (Ex.OP-8). Similarly, in the next bill dated 16.08.2018 the period from 26.06.2018 to 19.07.2018 for 22 days when the meter remained defective the consumption of 17247 KVAH (Ex.OP-9)added in the bill was also calculated as explained above whereas other units of 7210 KVAH are of the consumption of electricity as per new meter installed.
14. We have gone through the Electricity Supply Code Regulation 21.5.2 clause 'a' and 'e' at Ex.OP-17 wherein it is mentioned that the selection of month of previous year is to be taken as clause 'a' for charging the average bill but as per clause 'e' which is read as under:-
" e) The energy consumption determined as per para (a) to (d) above shall be adjusted for the change of load/demand, if any, during the period of overhauling of accounts".
The proportionate increase in the consumption was to be taken on the basis of the increase or decrease of maximum demand i.e. actual use of the load and not as per the sanctioned load. The maximum demand is available in the electricity bills.
15. Counsel for the complainant has also argued that complainant has already paid demanded surcharge in the previous years bills of 04.07.2017 and 02.08.2017 on the basis of excess demand as the maximum demand was more than the sanctioned one.
16. It has also brought to the notice of this Commission by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that opposite parties are adding surcharge/interest on the pending unpaid amount of the disputed bill without considering the fact that this matter is already pending in this Commission. On the other hand Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has agreed on this point that they will not charge any surcharge/interest on the pending unpaid amount of the disputed bill dated 16.08.2018. This Commission is also of the same view that as the case is pending in this Commission and there is no fault of the complainant for non-payment of the pending amount, so the surcharge/interest on the unpaid amount of the dispute bill is not liable to be charged.
17. As far as the issue of the disputed bills dated 14.07.2018 and 16.08.2018 on average basis are concerned as prayed in the complaint we are of opinion that these required to be corrected/rectified by calculating the average based on the maximum demand and number of days the meter remained defective not on the basis of increase in sanctioned load.
If we see the Ex.OP-13 i.e. the reference electricity bill of previous year dated 7/2017 the parameters are as follows;
KVAh = 18073
MDI = 35.755 KVA
No. of days = 30
Parameters of the disputed bill dated 14.07.2018 as Ex.C1 are follows;
MDI = 43.856KVA (Contract Demand)
No. of dyas = 26
So the average units to be charged in the disputed bill dated 14.07.2018 become
18073x(26/30)x (43.856/35.755) = 19212KVAh
Similarly, parameters of reference electricity bill at Ex.OP-14 of previous year dated 08.2017 are as follows;
KVAh = 17359
MDI = 36.722 KVA
No. of days = 31
Parameters of the disputed bill dated 16.08.2018 as Ex.C3 are follows;
MDI = 39.461KVA (Actual maximum Demand)
No. of dyas = 22
So the average units to be charged in the disputed bill dated 16.08.2018 become
17359x(22/31)x (39.461/36.722) = 13238KVAh
18. So, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to rectify/correct the disputed bills dated 14.07.2018 (Ex.C1) and 16.08.2018 (Ex.C3) by taking the average of 19212 KVAH in the bill dated 14.07.2018 and 13238 KVAH for the average period in the bill dated 16.08.2018. Opposite party No.1 is further directed to adjust the amount so calculated in the pending amount of bill dated 16.08.2018 and the future bills. No order as to costs.
19. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
20. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Jan. 04, 2024 Member
YP.
