Complainant Mango @ Shagu through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to withdraw the impugned demand raised vide bill dated 9.03.2015 and to set aside/quash the bill in question and also direct the opposite parties to issue bill after making proper consumption. Opposite parties be further directed to restore the electricity supply to her electric meter bearing Account No.G 31EF 932151 Y. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses to her, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that earlier she was residing at Ludhiana Mohalla, Dhariwal. She has sold her house and started residing at village Rania, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. She has got shifted her electric meter at Rania bearing Account No.G 31EF 932151 Y. She has been regularly paying the electricity charges to the opposite parties without any default. She is hiring the services of the opposite parties and thus he is consumer of the opposite parties. She is Christian by community and the Govt. has given concession of 200 units per month i.e. 400 units per bill to her. She is a poor widow lady and is holder of BPL Card being living under below poverty line. Her monthly income is Rs.1055/-. She has further pleaded that after transferring of the said electric connection from Ludhiana Mohalla Dhariwal to Village Rania, the opposite parties have not sent a single bill to her and as and when she approached to the opposite parties and trying to ask the reasons as to why she has not been issued the bills, the opposite parties have replied that the consumption of her electric meter is less than the concession granted by the Govt. since she is holder of electric connection having connected load of 0.26 KW and due to reading in Minus, the opposite parties have not issued bills to her for the last 27 months. She has next pleaded that on 8.4.2015, the employees of the opposite parties have disconnected her electricity supply at her back. On next day, she visited the office of the opposite party no.3 to meet the S.D.O. to know the facts as to why they have disconnected her electricity supply. Deepak Kumar J.E. met with her who asked her that the matter would be amicably solved and he himself written an application on her behalf but she has not signed at any point of time. Later on, she came to know on the said alleged application the opposite parties have assessed amount of Rs.55,515/- which was decreased by them from Rs.55,515/- to Rs.30,400/-. She requested the opposite parties that she is poor widow lady and she has never consumed such type of excessive energy so she is not bound to pay alleged amount. Thereafter, the said Deepak Kumar J.E. had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from her alleging that he will settle the dispute and no body will ask her to deposit the impugned amount and he will also restore her electric supply but she refused to oblige the illegal demand of Deepak Kumar J.E. Thereafter, the employees of the opposite parties visited her house on 16.4.2015 and handed over the bill which was of dated 9.3.2015 and the same is amounting to Rs.30,400/- and in the said bill the amount of Rs.25,113/- has been deducted on the application dated 9.4.2015. The impugned demand of Rs.30,400/- being levied by the opposite parties in the impugned bill dated 9.3.2015 is wholly illegal, null and void. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable because other party is recovering only balance/difference of electricity charges regarding energy consumed by the complainant. On merits, it was submitted that complainant has got shifted her connection and is availing concession of 200 units as alleged due to BPL Card holder. Hence the complainant is consumer of opposite party. As per office record the meter of complainant was shifted on 2.1.2013 and reading of meter was 401 units and due to change of Group/Area reading could not be obtained by Meter Reader. Due to shifting of meter the computer at the time of preparing the bi-monthly bill did not accept the new entries, hence at last the bi-monthly bill were used to be prepared and issued on the average basis since 3.5.2014 onwards. First bill of 3.5.2014 was prepared on the basis of average i.e. of 401 units but not paid and next bill dated 3.7.2014 was also prepared and issued of 401 units and subsequent bills were also prepared and were issued of 401 units but none of the bill was paid while actual reading on the shifted meter was 4800 units recorded in bill of 3/2015 and as per the reading recorded the consumer was liable to pay Rs.55,515/- but after adjustment of average units and exempted units upto 9.3.2015 the complainant has been rightly issued bill of Rs.30,400/-but the complainant failed to deposit the said bill hence her connection was disconnected vide PDCO no.141/8214 dated 19.1.2015 which was effected on 8.4.2015 after giving lot of time to consumer. The connection was disconnected on 8.4.2015 and 9.4.2015 the complainant visited the office of SDO and made an application dated 9.4.2015 on his application inspite of 4539 units only 3713 units were made chargeable and after deduction of reading of 401 units as was noted on 3.5.2014 after shifting of meter in question. Hence the amount to be recovered is legally recoverable. If complainant is not able to pay the amount in question in lump-sum then she could approach to higher authority to make instalments. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
- Complainant has tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1 and of Yonas Masih Ex.C11, along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10, Ex.C12 and Ex.C13 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Sukhdev Raj S.D.O. of the opposite parties has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 along with other document Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.
6. 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 it is clear that the complainant is the holder of electric connection bearing account No.G 31EF 932151 Y and as such a consumer of the opposite parties. It is the case of the complainant that she got her electric connection shifted from her earlier place of residence to village Rania. The opposite parties did not issue bills to her for 27 months. The complainant is holder of BPL Card and is a Christian by community and the Govt. has given concession of 200 units per months to her. On 8.4.2015 the opposite parties disconnected her electricity supply on account of alleged pending payment of bills by her to the tune of Rs.55,515/- which was later decreased by the opposite parties from Rs.55,515/- to Rs.30,400/- which demand is wrong and illegal.
8. On the other hand, opposite parties have contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the bill in question is only the balance/difference of electricity charges regarding energy consumed by the complainant. It is further admitted by the opposite parties that the meter of the complainant was shifted on 2.1.2013 and due to change of Group/Area reading could not be taken by Meter Reader. Their computer did not accept the new entries, hence bills were used to be prepared and issued on the basis of average of 401 units and as such the actual reading on the shifted meter was 4800 units recorded in bill of 3/2015 and the complainant was liable to pay Rs.55,515/-. It was further contended by the counsel that after adjustment of average units and exempted units upto 9.3.2015 bill of Rs.30,400/- was issued but the complainant failed to deposit the same and hence her connection was disconnected on 8.4.2015. The counsel further stated that if complainant is not able to deposit/pay the whole amount in question in lump-sum then she could approach the higher authority for payment of the same in installments.
9. From the entire above discussion, we find that opposite parties have already given adjustment of average units and exempted units upto 9.3.2013 and have sent a bill of Rs.30,400/- to the complainant and have further shown their willingness to accept the said bill of Rs.30,400/- in installments. Hence we find that this complaint can be best disposed off by giving directions to the parties and as such the complainant is directed to approach the opposite party within 15 days from receipt of copy of order for payment of the bill in dispute and opposite party is also directed to accept the same in 5 monthly installments.
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)
October 16, 2015 Member
*MK*
