Complaint No: 216 of 2019.

       Date of Institution: 02.07.2019.

               Date of order:02.11.2023.

Balbir Singh Son of Sh. Kartar Singh, Resident of Village Haruwal, Post office and Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak and District Gurdaspur.

                                                                                                                                                                                   .....Complainant.

                                                    VERSUS

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub - Division Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur, through its S.D.O. Pin Code – 143604.

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala, through its Chief Managing Director. Pin Code – 147001.

                                                                                                                                               .....Opposite parties. 

                                                          Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the complainant: Sh.U.R.Sharma, Advocate.

              For the opposite parties: Sh.Opinder Rana, Advocate.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

          Balbir 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 has installed an Atta Chakki at Village Haruwal for earning his livelihood and livelihood of his dependent family members by way of self-employment. It was submitted that the complainant himself is employed on this Atta Chakki and has not engaged services of any servant etc. The complainant has also got installed Electric connection bearing No. G 23 SP 630015Y in the name of his wife. It was further submitted that wife of the complainant had expired and after death of his wife, the complainant is continuously using the electricity from the above said account, and continue to pay the electricity charges to the opposite parties without any default and nothing is outstanding against him. It was further alleged that the complainant requested the opposite parties many time to change the electric connection in his name as his wife had died and completed all the formalities of the opposite parties but the opposite parties have not changed the electric connection in his name so far. It was further submitted that there are, other four Atta Chakki in the village, hence work load is very less and complainant generally consumes electricity to the extent of Rs.1800 to 2400/- Per month. It was further submitted that the opposite parties issued bill to the complainant on 14.05.2019 amounting to Rs.16,040/- and he has deposited amount of Rs.10,000/- out of above mentioned bill, on 17.06.2019 and Rs.6,040/- was to be paid. It was further alleged that although the above mentioned bill was also highly excessive and the opposite parties assured to rectify the bill in question in the next month but to his utter surprise, the opposite parties issued bill dated 17.06.2019 for Rs.20,810/-. The bill dated 17.06.2019 is also highly excessive and much more than the consumption made by the complainant. It was further alleged that on receiving the above mentioned bill he approached the OP No.1 and requested him to rectify the same but the OP No.1 refused to take any action into the matter. Rather, the OP No.1 threatened to recover the amount forcibly by adopting coercive methods, and to disconnect his connection, if the amount is not paid. 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 rectify the bill dated 17.06.2019 and to receive the actual consumption bill from him and not to recover the amount illegally slapped upon the complainant. It is further prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be restrained from disconnecting electric connection of the complainant, till the final decision of the complaint. The complainant may kindly be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

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 complainant has filed the present complaint with the intention to harass the opposite parties, as the complainant has not approached this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and concealed the material facts intentionally, deliberately. The present complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, as the complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. It was pleaded by the opposite parties that the complainant is not consumer to the opposite parties, hence this complaint may please be dismissed on this score only and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It was further pleaded that the bill dated 17.06.2019 is not highly excessive, because it is as per the actual consumption of the complainant. It was further pleaded that the electric meter of the complainant was changed as per spot checking vide checking No.97/2132. It was further pleaded that there is a difference between KVAH and KWH readings of the meter of the complainant hence the checking party directed the opposite parties to get the electric meter of the complainant checked from the M.E. Lab. It was further pleaded that the meter of the complainant was changed and same was packed in a card board in the presence of the complainant. The son of the complainant also given the consent regarding the checking the electric meter in question and same was sent to the M.E. Lab and on the direction of the M.E. Lab the opposite parties demanded the disputed amount, which is legal and genuine.

          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 Balbir Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Gurnam Singh, (S.D.O, P.S.P.C. Ltd, Sub – Division Dera Baba Nanak, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7.

6.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments filed by the opposite parties but not filed by the complainant.

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 per facts of the case as enumerated above the present complaint  was filed by the complainant to get the electricity bill dated 17.6.2019 amounting Rs.20,810/- rectified, issued by the opposite parties as Ex.C-1 against electric connection of Atta Chakki of the complainant bearing A/c No.G 23 SP 630015 Y.

10.     It was alleged by the complainant that the electricity bill in question is highly excessive as normally he was receiving the electricity bill from Rs.1800/- to Rs.2400/- per month only.

11.     It was also submitted by the complainant that this electric connection of Atta Chakki under small power category is in the name of his wife, who has already expired and he is running this Atta Chakki to earn livelihood of his family.

12.     We have placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1042 of 2020 in case titled as Canara Bank. Vs. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. wherein in para No.25 it is held as under:-

          "25. The definition of consumer under the Act is very wide and it not only includes the person who hires or avails of the                               services for consideration but also includes the beneficiary of such services who may be a person other than the person who hires            or avails of services".

Hence it is the valid case for adjudication in this Commission as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

13.     Opposite parties in their written statement denied all the allegations and stated that the electricity bill in question is as per actual consumption of electricity. Further it was pleaded that they got the meter of this connection checked from M.E. Lab as per checking report No.97/2132 at Ex.OP-2.

14.     It was also pointed out by the opposite parties that the said meter was checked as per consent of son of the complainant, and the bill in question was raised as per directions of M.E. Lab report at Ex.OP-4.

15.     We have gone through the evidences put on record by the opposite parties and  it is seen that the opposite parties has not placed on record any evidence showing the detail of calculation of the amount charged and also has not quoted any reference of rules and regulation vide which the amount was charged.

16.     The report of M.E. Lab. at Ex.OP-4 (in Punjabi) which read as under: -

          “Meter checked on test bench and its software found to be defective”. Clearly, shows that the said meter of this connection was defective.

17.     So, the overhauling the account of this connection was required to be done as per guidelines given under electricity supply code regulation 2014, regulation No.21.5.2 read as under:-

          "21.5.2 Defective (other than inaccurate)/Dead Stop/Burnt/Stolen Meters

The accounts of a consumer shall be overhauled/billed for the period meter remained defective/dead stop and in case of burnt/stolen meter for the period of direct supply subject to maximum period of six months as per procedure given below:-

          a).      On the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year.

          b).     In case the consumption of corresponding period of the previous year as referred in para (a) above is not available, the     average monthly consumption of previous six (6) months during which the meter was functional, shall be adopted for overhauling of accounts.

          c).      If neither the consumption of corresponding period of previous year (para-a) nor for the last six months (para-b) is     available then average of the consumption for the period the meter worked correctly during the last 6 months shall be taken for overhauling the account of the consumer.

          d).     Where the consumption for the previous months/period as referred in para (a) to para (c) is not available, the consumer   shall be tentatively billed on the basis of consumption assessed as per para -4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the corresponding period of the succeeding year.

          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".

18.     Further if such amount was required to be charged, even then as per electricity supply code - 2014 regulation 30.1.2, a separate notice was required to be issued before putting the amount in the electricity bill. But opposite parties has not produced any such cogent evidence showing the compliance to above instructions.

19.     So, as an upshot of the above said discussion it is observed that opposite parties fails to prove the charging of amount of Rs.20,810/- in the disputed bill in compliance to above referred regulations. Hence, the deficiency in service is fully established on the part of the opposite parties.

20.     In view of the above, the present complaint is partly allowed and the disputed electricity bill dated 17.6.2019 amounting Rs.20,810/- ( Ex.C-1) is hereby set aside. Opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to rectify the electricity bill dated 17.6.2019 as per above referred regulations of electricity supply code - 2014.

          No order as to cost.  

21.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.

22.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                          

      (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                  President  

Announced:                                               (B.S.Matharu)

Nov. 02, 2023                                                    Member

YP.