Complainant Gurmit Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to rectify the bill in dispute and to recover the actual consumption charges/amount from him. He has further claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, physical torture and financial loss cause by the opposite parties to him due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. He has also claimed Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had installed an electric connection bearing A/c No.G-76GT-760083N in his name. Complainant was using the electricity and paying its bills regularly and as such he the consumer of the opposite parties. The status of the meter which was installed in the premises of the complainant was ‘O’. On 19.6.2015 a bill amounting to Rs.17,360/- was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant which was payable on 29.6.2015 and in the bill in question the total consumption was shown as 622 units but the same was illegal and unjustified. Complainant had paid all the bills and last bill amounting to Rs.3650/- was also paid by him. It was pleaded that bill in dispute was highly excessive, exorbitant and much excess than the actual consumption made by the complainant and no reasons had been mentioned in the said bill that how such huge amount had been slapped on the complainant. It was pleaded that on receipt of the illegal bill in dispute complainant approached the opposite party no.3 and requested them to rectify the bill and to receive the actual consumption charges and also requested them to explain the reasons as to why such like amount was added in the bill but they flatly refused to take any action into the matter and threatened him that they will recover the amount from him forcibly by adopting coercive methods and they will disconnect his connection if he will not deposit the amount in question. It was further pleaded that complainant never used the electricity to this extent nor he came into the arrears. It was also pleaded that no notice before adding such like huge amount in the bill was served by the opposite parties to the complainant and as such the demand raised by the opposite parties in the bill in dispute is illegal, against the rules, cryptic, arbitrary without any basis and not binding upon the complainant. It was next pleaded that there is deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties and due to the illegal act of the opposite parties complainant had caused mental agony, physical torture and financial loss, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties have appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply stating therein that an electric connection bearing A/c No.GT-76 0083N for domestic supply was installed in the name of the complainant and another NRS electric connection bearing A/c No.GT-76 0093 was also installed in the name of the complainant under the same Sub-Division. It was stated that bill which was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant was of NRS connection bearing A/c No.GT-76 0093 but inadvertently the same was added in domestic connection bearing A/c No.GT-76 0083N. It was further stated that previously an Account Number CF-66-1473F (NRS) was running in the name of Gurmit Singh complainant under the same Sub-Division i.e. opposite party No.3 (The New Account Number of this connection was GT-76-0093 as the load of this connection was more than 10 KWs. and according to the rules of the PSPCL its Group was changed and a new Number GT-76-0093 was allotted in lieu of CF-66-1473F). It was also stated that complainant moved an application that his meter had burnt and he deposited the cost of the meter on 7.11.2013 which was replaced and packed at the spot in order to get it checked from the M.E. Laboratory Batala vide MCO Number 50691/166 dated 7.11.2013. The meter was checked in the M.E. Laboratory on 24.2.2015 where it was found that there was difference of 201 units in the reading of the meter and as such the cost of 201 units was charged from the complainant on account of difference of units in the NRS connection but due to sheer mistake the cost of 1201 units instead of 201 units had been charged and on the other the same had also been included in the domestic supply connection instead of NRS connection of the complainant. It was next stated that prayer made in the complaint is wrong and baseless as the complaint is false, frivolous, baseless and without any iota of truth and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation and litigation expenses. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Guran Ditta Revenue Accountant of the opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 along with other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
- We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their 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.
7. From the pleadings and evidence on record we find that it is an admitted case of both the parties that the present complainant obtained electric connection from the opposite parties bearing account number G-76GT-760083N and as such is a consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant has mainly challenged the bill dated 19.6.2015 for Rs.17360/- being excessive and wrongly raised by the opposite parties.
8. On the other hand opposite parties have submitted that meter of the complainant was burnt and on depositing of cost of the meter on 17.11.2013, the same was replaced. The old meter was packed for getting it checked from M.E. Lab. This meter was checked in M.E.Lab on 24.2.2015 and it was found that there was difference of 201 units in the reading of the meter. As the cost of these 201 units was to be charged from the consumer on account of difference of units in the NRS connection. But due to mistake cost of 1201 units instead of 201 units was charged from the complainant and same has been inadvertently added in his domestic connection account. Now this mistake has been rectified and a sum of Rs.15478/- has been given to the complainant vide memo No.943/6.10.2015. By virtue of this refund the opposite parties have removed the mistake committed by them.
9. From the entire above discussion we are of this considered view that opposite parties have admitted of having sent a wrong bill though inadvertently and unintentionally of 1201 units instead of 201 units only. And now this mistake has been rectified and a refund has also been made by them to the complainant. The inconvenience caused to the complainant for no fault on their part entitles him for suitable compensation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence we dispose off this complaint by directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.5000/- in lump sum as compensation and for litigation expenses within 30 days from the receipt of copy of orders. The amount already deposited if any during the pendency of this complaint be also refunded within aforesaid period. The opposite parties are further directed to issue regular correct bills in future on the basis of actual consumption of the complainant.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
JAN. 12, 2016 Member.
*YP*
