DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.132/03.09.2008 Decided on : 20.04.2009 Sh.Lachhman Dass S/o Sh. Chet Ram, resident of Santoshi Mata Mandir Street, Water Works Road, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, City, Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. Sweet.Singla, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Varinder Singla, Advocate counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. Sh.Lachhman Dass son of Sh.Chet Ram, a resident of Mansa, has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter called the board), through its Sub Divisional Officer, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for setting aside notice served through his office memo dated 21.8.2008 and for payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.5000/- with further direction not to disconnect his electric connection installed in his house.. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the complaint is that he had obtained electric connection bearing Account No.MG11/0144 for domestic purposes in his house and he had been regularly making payment of Contd........2 : 2 : amount of electricity bills drawn upon him and no amount is outstanding towards him, as such, he is the consumer of electric energy under the opposite party. Who have served notice, vide letter No. 1882 dated 21.8.2008 , upon him raising demand of Rs.2718/-, which is illegal and the complainant is not bound to deposit the said amount because amount has been calculated on average basis. The opposite party had also raised the demand of Rs.7530/-, for the period 6/08 to 8/08 and for the period 20/2007 to 2/2008 in the sum of Rs.1160/- but after complainant lodged protest, the said amount was reduced to Rs.4812/- and Rs.750/- respectively, which he deposited. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for which the complainant is liable to seek compensation from them alongwith costs of filing of the instant complaint. 3. On being put to notice, the opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and he is liable to deposit the amount of the bill on the basis of average consumption of electric energy in the month of October, 2006 as his electric meter went defective w.e.f. October, 2007. On merits, the factum of installation of electric connection in the name of the complainant in his house and service of impugned notice upon him raising demand of Rs.2718/-, is not disputed, but it is submitted that complainant was earlier served bill in the sum of Rs. 7530/- for the period 6/2008 to 8/2008, which included a sum of Rs.2718/- claimed on account of average consumption of electric energy, but as he protested that the said demand is illegal for want of service of prior notice, he was allowed to deposit the remaining amount of the bill on the basis of actual consumption. It is also contended that bill for the period 10/2007 to 2/2008 was sent in the sum of Rs.1160/- after deduction of Rs.400/- deposited earlier by him in excess of demand, but complainant was allowed to deposit Rs.750/-. It is reiterated that meter installed in the house of the complainant went defective in the month of Contd........3 : 3 : October, 2007 because of which bill was sent for consumption of 179 units on average basis as per the rules on the subject, as such, he is liable to pay the bill on the basis of average of 840 units in the month of October, 2006. It is denied that demand raised by the opposite party through the impugned bill is illegal and the complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment because of said reason. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, has been denied, and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint, with costs. 4. On being called by the Forum to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit and photocopy of documents Ext.C-1 to C-8 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party, tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Ajaib Singh, SDO Ext.OP-1 and photo copy of ledger Ext.OP-2 before he closed their evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. At the outset, Sh.Sweet Singla, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted, that in the bill for the month of October, 2007, the status of the electric meter installed in the house of the complainant has been recorded as OK and he has deposited the amount of the bill for the period 8/2008 and 9/2008. Learned counsel further submitted that opposite party was neither entitled to recover the amount for any previous period nor on the basis of average during the previous year, as such, there is deficiency in service on his part and complainant is entitled to seek compensation for mental and physical harassment alongwith costs of filing of the instant complaint. 7. On the other hand, Learned counsel for the opposite party Sh.Varinder .Singla, Advocate, has submitted that in case of defective meter, demand can be raised on the basis of average during the previous Contd........4 : 4 : year as per Regulation No.73.1.2 contained in the Sales Manual of the board and reduction of amount in the previous bill for the period 6/2008 to 8/2008 and adjustment of bill in the sum of Rs.400/- deposited by the complainant shows the bonafide on the part of the opposite party and there is no deficiency in service on their part, therefore, no interference by this Forum is warranted, as sought by the complainant, through the instant complaint and the same is liable, to be dismissed with special costs. 8. As per the facts placed on record, electricity meter installed in the house of the complainant went defective in the month of October, 2008. The Regulation No.73.1 and 73.1.2 contained in the Sales Manual of the electricity board provide that if the meter installed in the house of the consumer was found dead stopped, burnt or inoperative, average consumption of last 4 or 6 months or average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption by his electric meter, if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption and higher of those figures shall be charged to set the consumer's account right. Therefore, charging of amount on the basis of average consumption during the previous years as per the said rule framed by the board on the subject, cannot be termed to be illegal on the part of the opposite party. The mere fact that on the protest being lodged by the complainant, he was allowed to deposit the lesser amount of electricity bill than the bill issued on average or adjustment of Rs.400/- earlier deposited by him in excess was made at the time of deposit of bill for the period October, 2007 to February, 2008, cannot be said to be deficiency in service, from any stretch of imagination. Rather the conduct of the officials posted in the office of the opposite party suggests that they responded to the genuine concern shown by the complainant against the bills served upon him and granted him relief at the their own level without resorting to litigation. 9. In the light of the above discussion, we have come to the Contd........5 : 5 : conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, which may attract indulgence of this Forum, as sought by the complainant, through the instant complaint and no ground is made out for award of compensation and costs to him. 10. Resultantly, we dismiss the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 11. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 20.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
