Complainant Mrs.Bhawna Kashyap has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to cut off the bill which is shown as highly excessive. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment alongwith Rs10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she is residing in a rented accommodation of Sh.Karam Chand Consumer No.G11CF480779F and Contract No.3002435727 and is using electricity from the said connection for domestic use. Complainant occupied this rented accommodation and first paid bill for the period from 6.12.2017 to 8.2.2018 amounting to Rs.480/- (Ex.C-1). Complainant paid the subsequent bill amounting to Rs.1300/- for the period from 8.2.2018 to 5.04.2018 which included arrears of current financial year as Rs.475/-. Complainant paid 3rd bill for Rs.1700/- which again showed arrears of previous financial year as Rs.472/- and current financial year Rs.384/- and the same was also paid (Ex.C-3). Thereafter complainant received bill for five months shown from 05.04.2018 to 06.08.2018 amounting to Rs.7160/- showing the arrears of current financial year as Rs.59/-. Complainant received the next bill for seven months i.e. from 05.04.2018 to 03.10.2018 amounting to Rs.19,500/- which included arrears of Rs.14,130/- and ED-Infra Cess Rs.3807/-. The consumer requested to opposite parties for checking of electricity meter and the bill amount was raised to Rs.32,030/-. The officials of opposite parties informed the complainant that the meter was running in 'P' code and that was the reason for not getting current bills. Another bill for the period from 3.10.2018 to 4.12.2018 was received for amount of Rs.29,410/- showing arrears of current years as Rs.17,831/- and ED Rs.5903/- which was on the higher side (Ex.C-11). Complainant has further alleged that his previous bill was not addressed by opposite parties and they kept postponing the matter on one pretext or another. That as per law, equity and justice complainant was/is entitled to deduction of entire excess amount of Rs.29,410/- with future interest and there was no occasion for opposite parties to reject the said claim. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present Commission; the complainant has stopped by her own act and conduct; the complainant has not come to the Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint as the complainant is not the lawful consumer of the opposite parties in any manner. On merits, it was denied that the complainant is holding an account with the opposite parties being presently residing in rented accommodation from the last 8 months at Lawian Mohalla, Batala as alleged. It was also denied that the complainant is having the electric connection in dispute which is in the name of Karam Chand at Lawian Mohalla as alleged. The complainant is getting the supply of electricity for his home being a domestic connection and is consumer of the opposite parties as alleged. It was next denied that the officials of ME Lab even called the complainant to turn up to the Lab on 01.11.2018 at 10.30 AM at G.T.Road, Batala for checking of the meter in the presence of the complainant as alleged the complainant is not lawful consumer of the opposite parties and question of calling the complainant in ME Lab Batala for its checking does not arise. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties. Actually, as per the record of the opposite parties, the electric connection in dispute stands in the name of One Karam Chand, who is actual, lawful consumer and holder of the electric connection in dispute. The complainant has no connection with the electric connection dispute in any manner nor is the complainant legal heir or successor of Karam chand. Hence, the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint so for the electric connection in dispute is concerned. It was pertinent to mention here that so for bill dated 2.4.2018, the reading index 1740 to 1771 (31 units) is OK as per record of the opposite parties. So for the bill dated 06.06.2018, the reading index 1771 to 2885 (1114 Units), but the bill prepared by the Spot Billing Machine (SBM) of PSPCL on basis of P-Code (P-Code means the current consumption is more than three times the LYSM (Last Year Same Month) of 02 units only, whereas the last year i.e. 06-2017 consumption was also of 02 units. The opposite parties were to charge 1114 units. Similarly, so for the bill dated 06.08.2018, the reading index 1771 to 4725 (2954 units) for 123 days, it should be issued to the said Karam Chand from 2885 to 4725 in reading index (1840), whereas the Spot Bill Machine (SBM) generated the bill of Rs.7160/- which is very low. Similarly, so for the bill dated 03.10.2018 is concerned, Spot Billing Machine (SBM) generated the bill from reading index 1771 to 6372 (4601 units) for 181 days for Rs.19,500/- which is very low, whereas, the bill was to be issued from reading index 4725 to 6372 (1647 units). It was next submitted that the SAP system of PSPCL, the office on dated 12.10.2018 generated the bill from reading index 1771 to 6479 (4708 units) from reading date 05.04.2018 to 03.10.2018 for 181 days after verifying the reading from the meter of the said Karam Chand amounting to Rs.32,030/- on account of actual consumption of the electricity consumed by the said Karam Chand after adjusting the payments already made by the said Karam Chnd on the application dated 08.10.2018 of Pankaj Kumar son of Sh.Karam Chand. The said Karam Chand who is the actual consumer of the opposite parties made certain payments against the bill issued to the said Karam Chand by the opposite parties, the detail of which is as under:-
Date Amount Paid
20.08.2018 Rs. 7,160/-
17.10.2018 Rs. 8,000/-
09.01.2019 Rs.10,000/-
18.01.2019 Rs. 5,000/-
01.03.2019 Rs. 7,500/-
Rs.37,660/-
Hence, after adjusting the amount of Rs.37,660/-, a sum of Rs.15,223/- with surcharge and interest is due and payable by the said Karam Chand to the opposite parties upto 08.03.2019, which the said Karam Chand is legally liable to pay to the opposite parties in order to avoid disconnection of the electric connection. It was further submitted that on the application of Pankaj Kumar son of Sh.Karam Chand, the opposite parties issued a MCO No.100006835615 dated 26.10.2018 effected on 29.10.2018, whereby , the old electric meter was removed and new meter was installed and the old removed meter showed reading index 6702 was packed in a card box and paper seal was also affixed on the card box which was duly signed by Pankaj Kumar son of Sh.Karam Chand. The Pankaj Kumar also signed the consent letter, whereby, the said Pankaj Kumar deposed that he has no objection if old removed meter be checked in ME Lab in his absence. Thereafter, the old removed meter was sent to its checking vide Store Challan No.108 dated 01.11.2018 and thereafter, the panel members of ME Lab Batala checked the old removed meter, it was found that the meter was functioning within its determined limits and accuracy of the meter and also found OK vide Report No.4762 dated 01.11.2018. Thereafter, the opposite party issued a Memo No.1051 dated 22.11.2018 to the said Karam Chand, whereby, he was requested to deposit the remaining actual consumption amount due against him, but, the said Karam Chand failed to deposit the same. After changing meter on 29.10.2018, the actual consumption of new meter on 1.12.2018 is 402 units and on 05.02.2019 are 767 units, which shows that the actual consumption as shown during P-Code was/is true and correct and which is legally chargeable from the said Karam Chand. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Complainant has filed her own affidavit and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11.
5. Alongwith the written statement, ld.counsel for the opposite parties filed affidavit of Er.Tirath Raj, S.D.O/AEE. PSPCLtd. Ex.OP- 1,2/A and copies of relevant documents Ex. OP1,2/1 to Ex.OP1,2/15.
6. Rejoinder filed on behalf of complainant.
7. Written arguments filed by opposite parties.
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
9. In the present case Bhawna Kashyap is tenant of Karam Chand resident of Batala is using electricity from PSPCL with connection No.G1CF480779F and is a consumer of opposite party. Complainant received a bill in 2.2.2018 for Rs.480/- (Ex.C-1) and subsequent bimonthly bills of Rs.1300/- on 5.4.2018, including sundry charges of Rs.475/-, Rs.1700/- on 6.2.2018 with sundry arrears of Rs.472/- and Rs.384/- and next bill of Rs.7160/- in 8.2.2018 with arrear of Rs.59/-, in the month of 10.2.2018 a bill of Rs.19,500/- for the period of 4/18 to 10/18 with arrears of Rs.4130/- and Rs.3807/-. The prayer of complainant relates to electricity bill issued in 12/2018 as Ex.C-11, as explained in para 15 of complainant in which the excess amount charged as sundry is requested to be set aside. The grievance of the complainant is with respect to ever increasing bills and which included sundry charges/arrears even though the previous bills stands paid.
10. Though opposite party on its part admits to generation of incorrect bills as alleged by complainant. It is also admitted that even though the meter is ‘OK’ (O) in the meter status code, the spot billing machine is generating the bill with ‘P’ code which resulted in a generation of higher amount bills and not in parity with the actual consumption. Opposite party has failed to justify the bills even when the meter was working OK as per Ex.OP-10. This meter was checked on the request of complainant after depositing the requisite fees with opposite party.
11. Based on the grievance of the complainant and half hearted justification put forth by opposite party for the fault of Meter Reader/Spot Billing Machine, we are of the opinion that the charges of sundry amount in the disputed bill of 12/2018 are not justified and hence not leviable.
12. In view of above facts of the case, the complaint is partly allowed and sundry charges vide bill of 12/2019 Ex.C-11 are set aside, amount any paid against these charges by the complainant be refunded. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order.
13. 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.
14. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (R.S.Sukhija)
September 08, 2022 Member
*MK*
