Complainant Sukhwinder Singh 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 set aside the bill dated 10.3.2015. He has also claimed Rs.10,000/- & 15,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by him including Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he has installed an electric meter in his house bearing A/c No.G-74MX-310733M and as such he is the consumer of the opposite parties. Complainant has stated that he was paying his electricity bills regularly to the opposite parties. The previous bill payable by 19.1.2015 and the same was paid by the complaint to the opposite parties. It was pleaded that old meter was removed from the house of the complainant and Digital Electronic meter was installed by the opposite parties on January, 2015. It was pleaded that complainant has received the bill dated 10.3.2015 from the opposite parties which was payable by 20/25.3.2015 amounting to Rs.13150/- and in case of default amounting to Rs.14314/- but this bill was illegal, null & void and against the principle of natural justice. It was further pleaded that opposite parties have added the consumption of 1854 units in the bill dated 10.3.2015 of the previous old meter and an amount of Rs.11547/- was added as electricity charges for the same. It was also pleaded that opposite parties have removed the old meter and installed the new electronic meter at its own without calling the complainant for the same. Opposite parties never served any notice to the complainant at the time of taking the alleged consumption of 1854 units. It was next pleaded that it was un-understandable that how the opposite parties have collected the reading of 1854 units of the previous meter and how it is possible that reading of the previous old meter was 1854 units against the complainant as he was paying all the electricity bills regularly in time. It was pleaded that the amount charged in the impugned bill is illegal and complainant is not liable to pay the same. It was pleaded that no intimation/notice was given to the complainant and now the opposite parties threatening the complainant to disconnect his electric connection. It was further pleaded that complainant requested the opposite parties to correct the bill in question and not to charge the amount in question but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to genuine request of the complainant rather they harassing him by saying that we cannot do anything, what bill has been sent is to be paid by him, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and filed a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint by concealing the true facts. On merits, It was denied that complainant was paying the electricity bills regularly and at present he is defaulter of the Corporation. It was admitted that meter of the complainant was changed as all meter of mechanical has been changed with electronic meters as per policy of PSPCL. It was stated that meter of the complainant was also changed vide MCO No.154/2064 by JE Naresh Kumar on 12.1.2015 and the same was effected on the same day. It was stated that bill dated 10.3.2015 has rightly been issued to the complainant as per rules and regulations of the Corporation and as per actual consumption. It was admitted that new electronic meter was installed in place of old iron meter. It was stated that at the time changing the meter the serial No. of old meter was 1052985 and its maker was KE-1 and capacity of the same was 10-40 and the last reading of the same was 14671 units and at the time of month of January, 2015, reading of old meter was 13000 units and the bill of the same was deposited by the complainant at the time when the old meter was removed. The reading of meter at that time was 14671 units but the complainant had paid only upto 13000 units of the old meter but he has not paid the difference of units i.e. 1671 units of old meter which were actually consumed by him. It was further stated that reading of the new meter was 761 and new reading in the month of March was 944, hence total 183 units were consumed by the complainant in new meter. It was also stated that consumption of 1671 units of old meter + 183 units of new meter, hence 1854 units in total have been consumed by the complainant and as such amount in question was demanded by the opposite parties for the consumption of 1854 units and the same are recoverable from the complainant as per rules and provisions of PSPCL. It was stated that bill dated 10.3.2015 has rightly been issued to the complainant as per consumption and as per rules and regulations and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with special costs.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
- Concerned S.D.O. of the opposite parties has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Naresh Kumar J.E. Ex.OP-2 alongwith documents Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-6 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. That as per version of the complainant that he has received the bill dated 10.3.2015 from the opposite parties payable by 20/25.3.2015 amounting to Rs.13150/- in case of default amounting to Rs.14314/-. The alleged bill is illegal, null and void and against the principal of natural justice. The opposite parties have removed the old meter at its own and also installed new digital meter at its own and complainant was not called for the same and nothing was told to the complainant about the removing of old meter and installation of the new meter. It is further submitted by the complainant that he is paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties regularly. The previous bill payable by 19.1.2015 has been paid to the opposite parties. On the other hand the opposite parties have admitted that meter of the complainant was changed as all meter of mechanical have been changed with electronic meter as per policy of PSPCL and meter of the complainant was also changed vide MCO No.154/2064 by J.E. Naresh Kumar on 12.1.2015 and same was effected on the same day. The bill dated 10.3.2015 was rightly issued to the complainant as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL and as per actual consumption. On perusal of file it is admitted case of both the parties that meter of complainant has been changed. But on perusal of document MCO which is Ex.OP-3 meter has been changed but there is no signature of the complainant on the Meter Change Order dated 12.1.2015 and even not any of the family member of the complainant. The place where is written “Consumer Signature” is blank and no signature of J.E. Naresh Kumar who changed the meter. Moreover, as per Ex.OP-5 and Ex.OP-6, the consumption of meter for the month of 1/15 is 216, 11/14 is 164, 9/14 is 220, 7/14 is 275, 5/14 is 140 and 3/14 is 148 units. So, it is not possible that consumption of 1671 is in only 7 days of the old meter as old meter was removed on 12.1.2015 and new meter was installed on the same day. It is not possible that such huge consumption is only 8 days and it is excessive consumption charges.
- In the light of our above observation and findings, complaint filed by complainant is partly allowed and the impugned demand in the bill dated 10.3.2015 amounting to Rs.13150/- is held-illegal, null & void. The opposite parties are restrained to recover the aforesaid amount from the complainant. If the complainant has deposited any amount against this demand be refunded to him besides payment of Rs.3000/- as compensation. Compliance of the order be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of order.
9. 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)
SEPT. 08, 2015 Member.
*YP*
