BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.50-15

Date of Institution: 16-01-2015

Date of Decision: 28-04-2015  

Mr.Amit Bansal son of Sh.Inderpal Bansal, resident of  H.No.17, Sudershan Nagar, 100 Feet Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, earlier Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala service through AEE, Sultanwind Technical Sub Division, Hall Gate, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Deepinder Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. J.K.Singh, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Amit Bansal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is having domestic electric connection No.C37SW650649F in his name and he is making is payments of the bills issued by the Opposite Party from time to time. The complainant has received bill dated 26.4.2014 for Rs. 2330/- from the Opposite Party which the complainant has paid by due  date. Complainant alleges that the Opposite Party is issuing the subsequent bi-monthly  bills to the complainant and is charging the said amount of Rs. 2330/- in the said bills and the complainant has to approach the Opposite Party on receiving the bill and to request and justify that the alleged  payment had already been made and the Opposite Party  after a lot of persuasion use to rectify the bill every time and again in every subsequent  bill being issued till date, is charging the said alleged amount which the complainant had already paid and mark the complainant as defaulter. The Opposite Party has been requested time and again to rectify  their accounts and not to harass the complainant and further not to create the nuisance for the complainant to approach them for rectification of the bill by wasting his precious time, but the Opposite Party is least bothered about it.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party not to demand the alleged amount of Rs. 2330/- already paid by the complainant.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that admittedly, the complainant has deposited the bill of Rs. 2330/- with the Opposite Party, but due to some administrative mistake, the bill dated 26.4.2014 which was duly received by the Opposite Party, was again charged in the subsequent bi-monthly bills inadvertently. But the subsequent bills were duly corrected when the mistake was pointed out by the complainant. The mistake when pointed out, due corrective action was initiated on 10.10.2014, but some how the computer department of the Opposite Party could not feed the correct data to correct the mistake. The Opposite Party again took up the matter on 12.2.2015 with the concerned computer section for correction and hope, the matter will not occur again. The inconvenience, if any, caused to the complainant is regretted.   While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Tejinder Pal Singh, SDO Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant is consumer of electricity  vide account No.C37SW650649F under DS category. Complainant alleges that he has been making the payment of all the bills issued by the Opposite Party regarding consumption of electricity, regularly without any default. The complainant submitted that Opposite Party issued bill dated 26.4.2014 for Rs. 2330/- Ex.C2 and the complainant paid this amount before due date. Thereafter, the Opposite Party issued subsequent bi-monthly bills to the complainant and  has been charging the said amount of Rs. 2330/- in the said bills again and again. The complainant  approached Opposite Party  every time and requested and justified the officials of the Opposite Party that alleged demand of Rs. 2330/- has already been made by the complainant to the Opposite Party  and after lot of persuasion, the Opposite Party used to  rectify the bill every time. However, again in the next bill, same thing happened and it continued for about one year and every time, the complainant had to face aforesaid harassment. Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant deposited the amount of the bill dated 26.4.2014 for Rs.2330/- Ex.C2 with the Opposite Party before due date, but due to some administrative mistake, the amount of the bill dated 26.4.2014 i.e. Rs.2330/- which was duly received by the Opposite Party, was again charged in the subsequent bi-monthly bills issued to the complainant, inadvertently. Subsequent bills were duly corrected when the mistake was pointed out by the complainant and the charges were received only for the bi-monthly consumption of electricity as per the meter reading. However, no extra payment as charged by mistake was taken or received from the complainant.  The mistake when pointed out, due corrective action was initiated on 10.10.2014, but some how the computer department of the Opposite Party could not feed the correct data to correct the mistake. The Opposite Party again took up the matter on 12.2.2015 with the concerned computer section for correction and now the mistake has been rectified. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that all this happened due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the officials of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party regretted the same. Opposite Party submitted  that as such now there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the Opposite Party issued bill dated 26.4.2014 Ex.C2 for Rs. 2330/- to the complainant which was duly paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party within due date as admitted by the Opposite Party itself. However, the Opposite Party continued charging this amount again and again in the subsequent bi-monthly bills issued to the complainant and every time, the complainant had to approach Opposite Party and get the bill rectified. Opposite Party itself has admitted that the matter was initiated on 10.10.2014, but inspite of that, the computer department of the Opposite Party could not feed the correct data to correct the mistake. The Opposite Party has further admitted that they again took up the matter with the concerned computer section on 12.2.2015 for correction and then ultimately, the Opposite Party issued bill in March, 2015 after correcting the aforesaid mistake. All this shows that the Opposite Party issued the bills from April, 2014 to March, 2015 again and again by charging this amount of Rs. 2330/- in every bi-monthly bill of the complainant  and the complainant had to approach the Opposite Party for  correction of the bill and every time, he was being harassed for no fault of the complainant and the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant by not charging the amount of Rs.2330/- again and again in the bi-monthly consumption bills being issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant alongwith other current consumption charges bills, thereby the complainant suffered harassment and mental agony. Even the computer section of the Opposite Party did not correct this mistake when it was ordered to do so on 10.10.2014 and then again on 12.2.2015.
9. Consequently, we hold that the complainant is entitled to compensation for the harassment being suffered by him due to fault on the part of the officials of the Opposite Party.
10. Resultantly, we partly allow this complaint and the Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- and the Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 28-04-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                         Member