BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : CC/10/34

Date of Institution : 4.2.2010

Date of Decision : 27.9.2010

Smt. Nirmala Devi, aged about 56 years, wife of Late Sh. Parlad Ram Gupta, resident of Mistrian Wali Gali, House No. 356, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala through its Chairman, PSEB, Patiala.

2. Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot through its XEN, PSEB, Faridkot.

3. Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot through its AEE, PSEB, Faridkot

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Gurmeet Saini counsel for the complainant.

Sh. V.P.S. Brar counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties due to wrong billing of electric connection (Temp.) bearing No. 955 Installed at Kothi No. 40, Farid Avenue, Tower Wali Gali, New Harindra Nagar, Faridkot whereby an amount of Rs. 11,784/- has been wrongly claimed from the complainant and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said bill and to issue fresh bill according to actual consumption of the electricity and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is constructing a Kothi at Farid Avenue, Tower Wali Gali, New Harindra Nagar, Faridkot and to fulfill the need of water he got a temporary electricity connection and one motor of 1/2 BHP is installed for the use of water. For getting the said temporary electric connection all the required amounts were deposited by the complainant and electric meter No. 955 was installed by the opposite party No. 3 in the month of June at the said premises of the complainant. After the installation of the electric connection the 1^st bill was issued by the opposite party No. 3 under the control of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 on 4.11.2009 whereby an amount of Rs. 8183/- were wrongly claimed in which Rs. 5981/- were wrongly added as previous amount. In fact the said bill was the 1^st bill against the said connection. After the receipt of the said bill the complainant moved an application to the opposite party No. 3 on 30.11.2009 whereby it was requested that the bill amount has been wrongly claimed but the said application remained pending for long period and in the meantime another bill dated 3.12.2009 was issued by the opposite party No. 3 in which Rs. 10,444/- were claimed by adding Rs. 8811/- as previous amount illegally. Thereafter, the complainant made requests to the opposite parties to check the electric meter but without any result. Still thereafter, the third bill was issued by the opposite parties on 7.1.2010 wherein the amount of Rs. 11,784/- has been claimed in which Rs. 10,612/- have been added as previous amount illegally. On receipt of said bill the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 3 to inspect the spot and to check the meter then on the application already pending the JE of the PSEB, Faridkot went at the spot and after inspecting the spot he made report that the wires of the electric meter were wrongly fixed. The electric meter of the complainant was installed before the premises of the complainant but after sometime some employees of the opposite parties came in the said area and put the electric meter of other persons residing near the said premises from their houses and installed the same in a box and the electric meter of the complainant was also installed in the same box. In this way four electric meters were installed in a box but while installing the electric meter the said employees due to negligence fixed the wires of some other electric connection with the electric meter of the complainant wrongly, which has come to the knowledge of the complainant when the JE made the above mentioned report. After the said report of JE the complainant again approached the opposite parties and requested to claim the alleged amount of bill from the concerned person and not to claim the said amount from the complainant but the opposite parties openly declared that the said amount will be claimed from the complainant and in future the bill will be correctly issued and thereafter the opposite parties fixed the wires of the electric connection of the complainant with her electric meter and as such the opposite parties are wrongly claiming the huge and excessive amount from the complainant and they are openly threatening that in case the amount is not deposited then the electric connection will be disconnected and the amount will be recovered by coercive methods, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 5.2.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The amount relates to energy bills prepared on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the meter which has been unnecessarily been disputed to delay and avoid payment of the amount. Complainant obtained temporary connection bearing Account No. T/0398 for construction of her Kothi in New Harindra Nagar, Faridkot and temporary connection was released on 10.6.2009. First bill was prepared in the month of 7/2009 on the basis of MMC for 1.5 months for Rs. 1027/- which the complainant did not pay and the total amount of the bill for 7/2009 including surcharge of Rs. 103/- became due Rs. 1130/-. Bill for the month of 8/2009 was also prepared on the basis of MMC for Rs. 777/- and total amount including arrear of previous bill and surcharge on the current bill became due Rs. 1979/-. Bill for the month of 9/2009 was prepared on the basis of actual consumption of the meter of 685 units and total amount Rs. 5981/- including the amount of previous bills became due from the complainant which she did not pay. Bill for the month of 10/2009 was also prepared on the basis of actual consumption of 269 units and the total amount including arrear of previous bills and surcharge became due Rs. 8611/- but the complainant did not pay the same intentionally. Bill for the month of 11/2009 was also prepared for Rs. 1833/- and total amount of Rs. 10612/- became due towards the complainant. Bill for the month of 11/2009 was prepared for Rs. 1172/- and total amount of Rs. 11,892/- was due. Bill for the month of 1/2010 was prepared for Rs. 978/- and total amount of Rs. 12,870/- was due towards the complainant. The amount of Rs. 1979/- relating to the bills for the month of 7/2009 and 8/2009 was omitted to be included while preparing the bill for the month of 9/2009. So, this amount was charged in the bill for the month of 1/2010 and total amount of Rs. 14,849/- was due against the complainant but the complainant failed to pay even a single penny out of the above mentioned amount. Subsequently bill for 36 units was prepared in the month of 2/2010 on MMC for Rs. 832/- and total amount of Rs. 15,771/- was due against her out of which the complainant deposited only Rs. 4,000/- on 9.2.2010and balance of Rs. 11,771/- is due and recoverable from the complainant. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant obtained temporary connection for construction of her Kothi but it is denied that only 1/2 BHP Motor is installed. There are other light points also besides 1 BHP motor existing in the premises where the new Kothi is being constructed by the complainant. Application was given by the complainant on 3.12.2009 and it was marked to the JE concerned to check the reading of the meter but the complainant did not give the said application to the JE concerned and kept the same with her till 4.1.2010 when the same was again submitted in the office of the opposite party No. 3 and reading was checked by JE on 7.1.2010 and the same was found to be 1362 which clearly shows that the bill has been correctly prepared. The JE also checked the meter of the complainant and wires were also found to be changed with Account No. HN 99/0357 in the name of Buta Singh son of Khazan Singh. The wires were illegally and unauthorizedly changed by the complainant by breaking opening the seals of the MCB. Even if it is considered that the wires of the meter of the complainant were changed with Account No. HN 99/0357 then the complainant is liable to pay the bills for the relevant period which were paid by the consumer of Account No. HN 99/0357 which are much more than the amount now outstanding against the complainant. It is denied that three meters were installed in the same MCB and that any meter was fixed by the employees of the PSEB with some other meters. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8, copy of meter reading Ex.C-9, copy of meter reading detail of Buta Singh Ex.C-10, copy of receipt No. 251 Ex.C-11, copy of bill dated 10.12.2008 Ex.C-12, copy of application dated 16.2.2010 Ex.C-13, copy of application dated 30.11.2009 Ex.C-14 and closed her evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Randhir Singh Ex.R-1, affidavit of Vijayender Vinayak Ex.R-2, copy of application dated 30.11.2009 Ex.R-3, reading dated 16.2.2010 Ex.R-4, accounts statements Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-10, reading dated 16.2.2010 Ex.R-11, ledger book from Ex.R-12 to Ex.R-18 and closed their evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the impugned bill dated 4.11.2009 has been issued without taking into consideration the fact that outgoing of neighbourer was found connected with the meter of the complainant. In this connection heavy reliance has been placed upon report of JE dated 7.1.2010 in the margin of letter dated 30.11.2009 Ex.C-14 and the consumption data of the complainant and Buta Singh neighbourer copy whereof Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 respectively.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that impugned bill was prepared on the basis of MMC (Monthly Minimum Charges)/Actual consumption after including the arrears of previous bills. He further argued that complainant has not paid any amount of previous bill and future bill except paying Rs. 4,000/- that to pursuant of the order of this Forum dated 5.2.2010. In support of his contention folio of ledger in respect of bill Ex.R-11 to Ex.R-18 have been relied upon besides relying upon a copy of General condition of tariff as contained in Commercial Circular No. 36/2006.

10. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. Complainant has mainly relied upon report of JE as to change of wire of meter of the complainant with account No. HN-99/0357 in the name of one Buta Singh son of Khazan Singh to find fault with the consumption of electricity and amount shown as recoverable in the impugned bill as also future bills. It is noted that complainant made an application dated 30.11.2009 to SDO, PSEB, Faridkot Ex.C-14 for inspection of the meter in order to recheck its reading or the fact that wire of meter of any consumer may not be connected with her meter. A bare perusal of this application would show that application was given by the complainant on 3.12.2009 and it was marked to the concerned JE for the purpose of checking. Complainant did not give the said application to the JE concerned and kept the same with herself till 4.1.2010 when the same was again submitted in the office of the opposite party No. 3. The reading of the meter was checked by JE of opposite party No. 3 on 7.1.2010 and the same was found to be 1362. The bill prepared on 3.12.2010 on the basis of actual consumption of 1156 units can be presumed to be correct which included the amount of the previous bills as well. A bare perusal of the consumption as recorded in the ledger folios Ex.R-11 to Ex.R-18 on the basis of MMC/Actual Consumption would show that from the date of installation of temporary electric connection in the premises of the complainant till the month of January, 2010 total consumption is 1380 units, meaning thereby that there is average monthly consumption of 197 units which is correct and in accord with the connected load and the nature of work being done in the premises i.e. Construction of a new Kothi where consumption of electricity is expected to be very high. Report of JE qua the change of wires of Account No. HN 99/0357 of electric meter of Buta Singh with that of the electric meter of the complainant appears to be procured one from the wording of application dated 30.11.2009 Ex.C-14 and the factum of withholding the same by the complainant from 3.12.2009 onwards till JE report was sought on 7.1.2010. Consumption pattern of complainant and said Buta Singh as shown in Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 would shows that for the relevant period the consumption of Account No. HN-99/0357 is much more than that of the consumption under electric connection T-398 pertaining to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant has failed to demonstrate readings similarity/dissimilarity of both the accounts to pin point less consumption of electric meter under Account No. T-398 pertaining to the complainant.

11. In view of the our above observations and findings, we have not found any merits in the complaint filed by the complainant and therefore the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs due to peculiar set of circumstances. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 27.9.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)