Complaint No: 72 of 2023.

   Date of Institution: 29.03.2023.

           Date of order:06.02.2024.

Heera Singh Son of Tara Singh, resident of VPO Passnawal Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

                                                                                                               .....Complainant.

                          VERSUS

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Dehriwal Daroga, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, through its S.D.O.

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Superintending Engineer, Jail Road Gurdaspur.

3.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its CMD, The Mall Patiala. Pin Code – 147001.

                                                                                                                  .....Opposite parties.

                                Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.S.S. Randhawa, Advocate.

             For the Opposite Parties: Sh.J.S. Kaler, Advocate.

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

ORDER

Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

          Heera Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 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 an electric connection bearing No. G37PF231249A has been installed in the name of the complainant. It was pleaded that the complainant is consuming electricity through the above mentioned connection, making payment of electricity bills etc. and nothing is outstanding against him. As such the complainant is the consumer to the opposite parties. Sanctioned and existing load of electric connection of the complainant is 2.6 K.W. Average bimonthly bill of the complainant is in between Rs.1000 to Rs.1500/-. It was further pleaded that the opposite parties issued bill dated August 2022 for Rs.75,110/-. After receiving the above mentioned bill, the complainant approached the OP No. 1 and requested to rectify the bill and the OP No. 1 assured the complainant that excessive amount has been added in the bill due to some technical defect and the same will be removed. Even the OP No. 1 asked the complainant not to deposit the bill amount till it is rectified. It was further pleaded that again the opposite parties issued bill in October 2022 for Rs.1,14,140/- and bill dated December 2022 for Rs.1,17,270/-. After receiving the above said bills, the complainant approached the OP No. 1, but both the times OP No. 1 asked the complainant to wait for rectification of the bill. Now the opposite parties have issued bill dated 27.01.2023 for Rs.1,19,030/-. It was further pleaded that on receipt of bill dated 27.01.2023, the complainant approached the OP No. 1 on the same day and requested him to rectify the bill. The complainant also requested the OP No. 1 to receive the actual consumption amount from him on the basis of consumption made by him on the basis of same months of previous year. But the OP No. 1 refused to take any action into the matter by saying that the bills have been issued on average basis and the complainant is bound to pay the same. It was further pleaded that not only this, also the OP No. 1 threatened to disconnect the domestic electric connection of the complainant in case of non-payment of the bill, this act on the part of the opposite parties caused mental agony, torture, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. The bills in question are highly excessive, exorbitant and illegal as the complainant never consumed electricity to this extent. The complainant never came into arrears of the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that the complainant is not in a position to make payment of the above mentioned amount, nor he consumed electricity energy to such extent for which the above mentioned bills have been issued. It was further pleaded that the complainant had been approaching the OP No. 1 time and again and requesting him to rectify his bill and to receive the actual consumption charges. But the OP No. 1 refused to admit legal and genuine claim of the complainant. It was further pleaded that the demand of the opposite parties without any checking and notice is illegal, against the rules, cryptic, arbitrary, without any basis, and liable to be withdrawn and not binding upon the complainant. As such the demand in question is liable to be QUASHED. 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 in dispute and to recover the actual consumption amount from the complainant and not to recover amount of Rs.1,19,030/- mentioned in the bills in dispute. The opposite parties may also be restrained from disconnecting domestic electric connection of the complainant during pendency of this complaint. The complainant may kindly be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- after accepting this complaint, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply, stating therein that Meter reader Satnam Singh employee of the opposite parties / PSPCL Dehriwal marked the meter status of the complainant has “D” code. The meter of the complainant is falls in the exception list of the PSPCL. It was pleaded that on the basis of the report of meter reader “D” code, the meter of the complainant was changed on dated 04.07.2022 vide MCO No. 52/615 by the order of the S.D.O Kulwinder Singh, PSPCL, Dehriwal. On the application of the complainant the load of the meter of the complainant was extended from 0.06 K.W to 2.6 K.W. The complainant deposited the fees of Rs.2764/- for the MCO. Since the meter of the complainant falls in “D” code in the exception list of the PSPCL. Therefore, the revised bill on August 2022 of Rs.75,110/- average bill of the previous year. It was further pleaded that next bill in October 2022 amounting of Rs.1,14,140/- and next bill in December 2022 amounting of Rs.1,17,270/- for the average previous year bill by issued to the complainant as per the rules of the PSPCL and also next bill of dated 27.01.2023 amounting Rs.1,19,030/- for the previous year average bill. It was further pleaded that the bill issued to the complainant on average basis of the previous year which the complainant is bound to pay the bill to the PSPCL because the meter of the complainant falls in “D” code as per exception list of the PSPCL. Since, the bill issue to the complainant is according to the rule of PSPCL which cannot be rectified. It was further pleaded that the bill issue to the complainant according to the rule 21.5.2 Supply Code 2014 of the PSPCL.

          On merits, the opposite parties 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 Heera Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Kulwinder Singh, (S.D.O, P.S.P.C. Ltd, Sub - Division Dehriwal, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 alongwith reply.

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 for rectification of the electricity bill dated 27.01.2023 amounting to Rs.1,19,030/- bearing A/c No.G-37PF-231249A issued by the opposite parties (Ex.C-1). It was alleged that bill in dispute is highly excessive exorbitant and illegal. It was pleaded by the complainant that the problem was started when the opposite parties issued electricity bill in August, 2022 for Rs.75,110/- which became Rs.1,19,030/- upto January, 2023. It was also mentioned in the complaint that the sanctioned load is 2.6 KW and normal electricity bill was between Rs.1000/- to Rs.1500/-. Copies of electricity bills dated 10/2022, 04/2022, 07/2020 are placed on record at Ex.C2, Ex.C4 and Ex.C5.       

10.     Opposite parties in their written reply denied all the allegations and stated that the meter of the complainant was changed on 04.07.2022 and placed copy of MCO at Ex.OP-3. It was further pointed out that the load of this connection was extended from 0.06 KW to 2.6 KW on 20.05.2022 as per Ex.OP1. It was further pleaded by the opposite parties that the electricity bills of complainant from August, 2022 to October 2022 was charged on average basis as per Electricity Supply Code, 2014 regulation 21.5.2 (Ex.OP-10). It was clarified during the arguments by the counsel for the opposite parties that the electricity bill during the period for which the meter was defective were charged on the basis of the reading corresponding to previous year by raising it proportionately as per increase in load. So, 13043 units were charged in the month of 08/2022 and 6538 units were charged in the month of 10/2022. Thereby, the bill for the month of 08/2022 was issued for Rs.75,110/- and for Rs.1,14,140/- for the month of 10/2022 which include the arrear of previous bill. Further bills upto 01/2023 were issued by adding the arrears of previous bills making at Rs.1,19,030/-  in the month of 01/2023.

11.     Consumption data and calculation sheet is placed at Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5 and copies of related electricity bills are placed at Ex.OP-6 to Ex.OP-9 by the opposite parties.

12.     From the consumption data put forth by opposite parties at Ex.OP-4 it is seen that the consumption of electricity in the year 2021 varies from 148 units to 302 units only. Even after the increasing load to 2.6 KW in 05/2022 the consumption varies from 269 units to 501 units only from December, 2022 to May, 2023.

13.     Surprisingly, 13043 units were charged in the bill of 08/2022 and 6538 units in the bill of 10/2022 by the opposite parties which is many fold of the regular consumption of the complainant even after increasing load. It has not been visualized by the opposite parties whether this much consumption of electricity is possible in two months for the load of 2.6 KW in domestic category. In our opinion this much consumption is impossible even if the load of 2.6 KW is run for 24 hrs continuously for two months. Further, if the consumption is calculated as per Electricity Supply Code Regulation 21.5.2 (d) and para 4 of Annexure-8 on the basis LDHF formula even then the consumption for two months comes out to be 374 units only (2.6 x 60 x 8 x 0.3). It has been mentioned in the above annexure that the average consumption factor is taken as 0.3 (30%) and a number of average hours are considered as 8 hours for domestic category to assess the average consumption.

14.     No doubt as per Supply Code Regulation 21.5.2 (e) (Ex.OP-10) it is mentioned to adjust the consumption as per change in load/demand. So, we are of the view that it is the demand that varies with the use of the load at different time which contribute to the units consumed. So, if the units of the previous year were to be raised it should have been done on the basis of increase/decrease in maximum demand but opposite parties have considered the change in load which is not justified.

          Further, we are also of the view that at present the actual consumption of electricity of this connection for the present sanctioned load of 2.6 KW is available in the year 2023 after the replacement of meter, so the average units can be charged on the basis of actual consumption available. Hence, the electricity bills for the month of 08/2022 and 10/2022 are required to be rectified as per actual consumption available in the same months of succeeding year. It has also been mentioned in regulation 21.5.2 (d) of the Supply Code Regulation 2014.

15.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering the circumstances and facts of the case the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to rectify the bills in dispute from 08/2022 and 01/2023 by charging the consumption in the electricity bills of 08/2022 and 10/2022 on the basis of actual consumption available in the corresponding months of succeeding year 2023. No order as to costs.        

16.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                         President

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Feb. 06, 2024                                                Member

*YP*