BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.646 of 2013

                                 Date of institution:          20.12.2013

                                                   Date of Decision:            08.05.2015

Harbakshish Singh Bains son of Late Balwant Singh, resident of Kothi No.515, Behind Cricket Stadium, Phase-9, Mohali.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     PSPCL Patiala through its Secretary representing State of Punjab.

2.     The Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Phase-1, Mohali.

3.     The SDO PSPCL, Technical Phase-1, Mohali.

4.     Officer Incharge, PSPCL, Depositing of Electricity Bills, Gurudwara, Phase-9, Mohali.

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.

Present:    Shri Pankaj Chandgothia, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Ashok Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to pay him damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-  for illegal action and providing deficient services like:

(a)    non installation of new meter within 10 days after the meter was found dead on 05.03.2013.

(b)    non payment of Rs.50/- per day from 05.03.2013 to date.

(c)    for sending fabricated bills on the basis of recording consumption which was not in existence.

                The complainant’s case is that he is senior citizen of 86 years of age. He is suffering from several deadly diseases. On receipt of electricity bill of Rs.23,570/- for the period from 02.07.2013 to 10.09.2013, the complaint gave complaint to OP No.2. The meter of the complainant is located outside his house and was running very fast. The meter stopped working which was brought to the notice of OP No.2. The complainant has been receiving exaggerated bills on account of fault of defective meter as the new meter is also running extremely fast.  The complainant received bill of Rs.29,000/- in December, 2013. The OPs have not taken any steps to resolve the grievance of the complainant and this act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.             The OPs in the written statement have pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as the electricity bills issued to the complainant were based on actual consumption.  On merits, it is pleaded that  as the electric meter of the complainant had shown ‘D’ code and subsequently burnt meter, the complainant was asked to deposit the bills as per guidelines and the formula prescribed and applicable in this case.  The OPs issued bill to the complainant from 02.07.2013 to 08.02.2014 for 221 days as per LDHF Formula. The OPs have never received any complaint from the complainant.  The complainant could have approached the Disputes Redressal Committee constituted under the law instead of approaching this Forum. Denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint against them.

3.             Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-10.

4.             Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of A.K. Sharma, Addl. SE Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-7.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties. They have not filed any written arguments.

6.             Admittedly the complainant is consumer of the OPs having availed the services of electricity on agreed chargeable rates. The complainant received various bills totalling to Rs.40,620/- from 02.07.2013 to 08.02.2014 for consumption of electricity against meter No.856424 and new meter No.1120288 installed w.e.f. 10.09.2013. As per the complainant the meter No.856424 was shown dead in the electricity bill issued for the period 04.05.2013 to 26.07.2013 Ex.C-10. Without removing the defective or installing the new meter, the OPs have issued various bills of the dead meter. The complainant disputed the formula for levy of energy consumption during the period when the meter remained dead from 02.07.2013 to 10.09.2013 and further alleged that the defective meter has been replaced. Since the status of the meter on Ex.C-10 was shown as dead the complainant has informed the OPs to replace the meter with the new one vide his request letter Ex.C-6. The said intimation was given to the OPs on their registered mobile as is evident from the details of the telephone calls of the telephone connection of the complainant. The complainant has given timely intimation to the OPs for changing the dead meter and the OPs have taken unnecessary long period to replace the defective meter. As per the rules of the business of the OPs Ex.C-8 in the event of meter complaint, the inspection is to be conducted within 7 days and the replacement is to be made within 10 days failing which the OPs are to pay a penalty of Rs.50/- per day for default. Moreover, during the period when the meter was dead  the OPs have charged the electricity consumption on the basis of wrong formula i.e. LDHF whereas the charges are to be calculated on the basis of defective (other than inaccurate) dead stock/burnt/stolen meter as per  Electricity Supply Code 2014.  Thus, the OPs have caused him financial loss on two accounts i.e. one by applying wrong calculation formula for defective meter and secondly for causing delay in replacement of the defective meter with the new meter besides causing mental agony to a senior citizen.  Out of the total bill raised of Rs.40,620/- the complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.11,773/- as per interim order dated 30.01.2014 of this Forum and Rs.8,709/- vide Ex.OP-8. In all total amount of Rs.20,482/- has been paid. For the balance outstanding amount the complainant has raised the present dispute as to find out the correctness of the formula applied for levy of electricity charges in the bills raised from 02.07.2013 to 08.02.2014 for both defective meter No.856424 and new meter No.1120288.

7.             The OPs have admitted the status of the meter as ‘D’ code i.e. defective meter for the period when the bills for consumption from 02.07.2013 to 08.02.2014 have been issued to the complainant. However, the OPs have taken a categoric stand that the bills have been raised on the basis of LDHF Formula which has been correctly applied. It will be pertinent to understand the contents of Ex.OP-7 i.e. the assessment of electricity charges in cases of unauthorized use/theft, as relied upon by the OPs to prove the correctness of the electricity bill. The relevant para of the said assessment order is para 4 i.e. LDHF Formula. L stands for where the load is found connected during the course of inspection in kilowatt. D is number of days. H is used for supply per hour per day. F stands for demand factor. Very surprisingly the said formula pertains to, as is evident from the title of the order in case of unauthorized use/theft whereas the case of the complainant is of defective meter having been informed to the OPs by the complainant vide Ex.C-6. To support the contention that the formula has been wrongly applied, the complainant has relied upon the supply code extract of which has been produced with the written arguments by the complainant that in the event of defective meter  the charges are to be calculated on the basis of defective (other than inaccurate) dead stock/burnt/stolen meter as per  Electricity Supply Code 2014 and the said formula has not been compiled by the OPs while computing the electricity consumption and charges leviable thereupon for the period when the meter remained defective and was replaced with new one  from 04.05.2013 on wards.  There is no rebuttal from the side of the Ops regarding the supply code which is their own official document. Thus, it is ample clear that the OPs have wrongly charged the consumption charges on a wrong formula for the bills issued from 04.05.2013 to 08.02.2014 and this act of the OPs is an act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

8.             So far as delay in replacement of the defective meter with the new functional and operative meter is concerned, the factum of meter being dead is in the knowledge of the Ops from 04.05.2013 onwards as is evident from Ex.C-10.  So much so the complainant has informed the OPs on telephone on 17.07.2013 about the defective meter and requested for replacement of new meter. The Ops have installed the meter after a delay of 38 days in effective the replacement of defective meter and such delay on the part of the Ops as per the scheme of the OPs attracts penalty of Rs.50/- per each day of default. Admittedly the meter has been replaced on 10.09.2013. Thus the delay of 38 days is admitted by the OPs and the complainant is entitled to invoke the penalty clause of Rs.50/-per each day and for not releasing the amount due to the complainant on this account is an act of unfair trade practice. On both these accounts the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony. Thus, the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.

9.             In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OPs to:

(a)    to issue the revised electricity bills w.e.f. 04.05.2013 to 08.02.2014 after applying the formula as per Clause 21.4.2  of Supply Code 2014 and adjust the amount already paid and not to  charge any penalty and other charges for non payment of disputed bills.

(b)    to pay Rs.1,900/- (Rs. One thousand nine hundred only) as penalty for delay occurred in replacement of the defective meter with a new one.

(c)    to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) on account of mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

May 08, 2015.          

                                (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

                                                        (A.B. Aggarwal)

Member