BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.480-14

Date of Institution:02-09-2014

Date of Decision:15-04-2015  

Davinder Singh son of Amrik Singh, resident of Raja Sansi, Tehsil & District Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through S.D.O. Harsha Chhina Sub Division, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.A.P.Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. Anil Sharma, 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.Davinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he has domestic electric connection bearing account No.46JH520824W and is paying the bills regularly issued by the Opposite Party without any default. Complainant alleges that in the month of May 2014 the complainant was astonished to receive a bill dated 12.5.2014 for Rs.1,12,420/- showing just 245 units.  Before adding this amount in the consumption bill, the Opposite Party never issued any prior notice to the complainant. The complainant immediately went to the office of  Opposite Party for the correction of the said bill, but the Opposite Party did not correct the said bill and even threatened to the complainant to disconnect his electricity connection, if he did not pay the said bill.     Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to quash the impugned amount raised by the Opposite Party in the bill dated 12.5.2014. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that due to ‘F’ code in the month of May 2013 to January 2014, the average bills were issued to the complainant. After that the account of the complainant was overhauled according to actual consumption and a detailed bill for difference of consumption of Rs.86,943/-, current consumption bill of Rs. 2448 units i.e. Rs. 17,800/- alongwith previous month bill Rs. 7677/-  total amounting to Rs.1,12,420/- was issued to the complainant in the month of May, 2014 to which the Opposite Party was legally entitled to recover.   While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amrinder Pal Singh AEE Harsha Chhina Ex.OP1 and copies of Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3 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 is clear that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide account No.46JH520824W. Complainant alleges that he has been  paying the bills issued by the Opposite Party regularly without any default. However, the complainant received bill dated 12.5.2014 for Rs.1,12,420/- Ex.C2 showing the consumption of this period just  245 units. The complainant immediately approached Opposite Party for the correction of the said bill, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  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 due to ‘F’ code given by the meter reader to the meter of the complainant in the month of May 2013, the bills were issued to the complainant for the period from  May 2013 to January 2014, on  average basis. But later on, it was detected that the meter was functioning properly, but has been given ‘F’ code wrongly by the meter reader. Resultantly, the account of the complainant was overhauled vide Half Margin Ex.OP2 and the amount charged detailed Ex.OP3 and a sum of Rs. 86,943/- was found due payable by the complainant. The complainant had not paid the previous bill of Rs.7677/-, the amount of which was also added in this bill and the current consumption bill of 2448 units Rs. 17,800/- . In all the bill  Ex.C2 for Rs.1,12,420/- was issued to the complainant in the month of May, 2014 and this amount is being charged from the complainant on the basis of actual consumption of electricity by the complainant.   Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide account No.46JH520824W. As per the record of the Opposite Party, meter reader of the meter of the complainant gave ‘F’ code in the month of May 2013. Resultantly, the bills for the period from  May 2013 to January 2014, were issued to the complainant on average basis. Whereas the meter was running properly and was showing the consumption as detailed in the consumption data/ amount charged detail of the meter of the complainant Ex.OP3. Resultantly, the account of the complainant was overhauled vide Half Margin No.35 dated 27.3.2014 Ex.OP2 and a sum of Rs. 86, 943/- was found payable by the complainant after deducting the amount already charged from the complainant on average basis for the aforesaid period of May 2013 to January 2014. The complainant also did not pay the present consumption bill as well as previous bill. So, in all, the amount of Rs.112420/- was charged from the complainant through the current consumption bill dated 12.5.2014 Ex.C2.
9. As per regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party can not charge this amount from the complainant in the current electricity consumption bill without issuing separate prior detailed notice. It has been held by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case PSEB Vs. Hardeep Singh  2010(2) CLT 259 that where the payment of Rs.27501/- was not raised by the appellant through a separate detailed notice as required by Regulation 124.1 and added in the bill in dispute as sundry charges, there is violation  of the regulation of the Opposite Party. However, the appellant is at liberty to raise fresh demand of the amount in dispute and can charge the same from the complainant by following proper procedure. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case Ishar Singli Vs. PSEB 2011 (2) CLT page 420. But in this case, no such procedure has been adopted by the Opposite Party. As such the demand of Rs. 86,943/- raised by the Opposite Party under head ‘Sundry Charges’ on account of overhauling the account of he complainant vide Half Margin Ex.OP2, is not sustainable because the Opposite Party has not followed the proper procedure as laid down under regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party.
10. Resultantly, the complaint is partly allowed and the demand of Rs. 86,943/- raised by the Opposite Party in the current consumption bill dated 12.5.2014 Ex.C3 on the basis of Half Margin No. 35 dated 27.3.2014, Ex.OP2, is not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside.  However, the Opposite Party can charge this amount from the complainant after following proper procedure as laid down under regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  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: 15-04-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                         Member