BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.225 of 2014

Date of Institution: 27-04-2014

Date of Decision: 07-07-2015  

Divesh Chohan son of Ashok Kumar, resident of House No. 1204/8, Kt.Sher Singh, Near DAV College Library, Gali Kamboj, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through SDO, Durgiana Temple Sub Division, Amritsar.  

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. S.K.Sharma, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.  N.S.Sandhu, 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.Divesh Chohan  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that Sh.Tilak Raj, grand father of the complainant had obtained electric connection bearing account No.C14DT410094W in his residential premises of DS category. Complainant alleges that since the date of installation of this connection,  Sh.Tilak Raj grand father of the complainant had been paying the bills regularly. Said Tilak Raj has since died and after his death, the complainant is using this connection and is paying the consumption charges regularly without committing any default and nothing is due outstanding against this connection. Complainant further alleges that previously, the Opposite Party had wrongly issued bill and wrongly charged  excess amount under DSM category. The complainant had raised objection regarding DSM tariff and now the Opposite Party has corrected the tariff of DSM to DS. In the month of October, 2013 the electricity meter of the complainant became defective and he immediately approached the Opposite Party and lodged a complaint to this effect. However, the bills were being issued on average basis which where paid by the complainant. Later on, the said defective meter was changed. In the month of 11/2013, the Opposite Party had issued bill to the complainant for  2544 units of DSM tariff (without giving any rebate), although he was not liable to pay the same, but under the threat of disconnection, he had paid the same. Now the Opposite Party has again issued bill dated 28.3.2014 claiming a sum of Rs.24,560/- before due date and Rs.26,500/- after due date showing the amount of Rs. 3863/- and Rs. 10,565/- under the head  ‘sundry charges’.  On receipt of the bill, the complainant approached the Opposite Party and showed the previous bills and the Opposite Party had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 3863/- only and corrected the bill  for Rs.20,730/- before due date and Rs.22,662/- after due date without disclosing the details of Rs. 10,565/- which is illegally claimed as ‘sundry charges’. The complainant is not liable to pay this amount. The complainant requested the Opposite Party to withdraw this amount and also to give the details thereof, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to withdraw the disputed amount claimed by the Opposite Party in the current consumption bill as well as previous bills; to refund the excess amount already received by them, alongwith interest. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the meter of the aforesaid connection was changed vide MCO No.M13/6924 dated 24.8.2013 effective from 27.8.2013. The billing was made to the complainant from 2.8.2013 to 27.9.2013 and during this period, the meter was changed effective from 27.8.2013 and before that, the bill of average was issued to the complainant and thus, the billing from 2.8.2013 to 27.9.2013 included 25 days on average basis. In this manner, the complainant became liable to pay consumption charges of 483 units as per the calculations i.e. 1102/57x25=483 units. From 27.8.2013 (date of change of meter) to 27.9.2013 the complainant became liable to pay consumption charges  of 2043 units + above 483 units=2526 units and after giving adjustment of consumption charges of 1102 units already paid by the complainant, the complainant became liable to pay actual consumption charges to the tune of Rs.10,505/- as per half margin No. 504 dated 21.2.2014. Thus, a memo was issued to the complainant claiming the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,505/- from him, but the complainant failed to  comply with the said memo, therefore, the amount in question has been added in the bill dated 28.3.2014 in the column of sundry charges. The demand raised by the Opposite Party is  quite legal and valid. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 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.Rajinder Kumar, AEE Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 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 electric connection bearing account No.C14DT410094W under  DS category. Complainant alleges that he has been making the payment of electricity consumption charges regularly without any default. Complainant alleges that   previously, the Opposite Party had wrongly issued bill to the complainant  under DSM category. The complainant had raised objection regarding DSM tariff and the Opposite Party has corrected the tariff of DSM to DS. In the month of October, 2013 the electricity meter of the complainant became defective and the Opposite Party issued the bills on average basis which where paid by the complainant. In the month of 11/2013, the Opposite Party had issued bill to the complainant for  2544 units of DSM tariff and the complainant  was not liable to pay the same. However,  under the threat of disconnection, he had paid the same. The Opposite Party has again issued bill dated 28.3.2014 for a sum of Rs.24,560/- in which the Opposite Party claimed  Rs. 3863/- and Rs. 10,505/- under the head  ‘sundry charges’.  On receipt of the bill, the complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested for the rectification of the bill. The Opposite Party then withdrew the  amount of Rs. 3863/- only and corrected the bill  for Rs.20,730/- in which they charged Rs.10,505/- illegally under the head  ‘sundry charges’. The complainant approached the Opposite Party for the withdrawal of this claim of Rs.10.505/- but the Opposite Party failed to 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 the complainant has electricity connection bearing  account No.C14DT410094W under  DS category with sanctioned load of 8.06 KW. The meter of the complainant became defective and the same was changed vide  MCO No.M13/6924 dated 24.8.2013 effective from 27.8.2013. The billing was made to the complainant from 2.8.2013 to 27.9.2013 and during this period, the meter was changed effective from 27.8.2013. Before that, the bill of average basis was issued to the complainant and thus, the billing from 2.8.2013 to 27.9.2013 included 25 days on average basis. In this manner, the complainant became liable to pay consumption charges of 483 units as per the calculations i.e. 1102/57x25=483 units. From 27.8.2013 (date of change of meter) to 27.9.2013 the complainant became liable to pay consumption charges  of 2043 units + above 483 units=2526 units and after giving adjustment of consumption charges of 1102 units already paid by the complainant, the complainant became liable to pay actual consumption charges to the tune of Rs.10,505/- as per half margin No. 504 dated 21.2.2014. Resultantly, notice vide memo dated 27.3.2014 Ex.OP3 was issued to the complainant  claiming the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,505/-  and the complainant was required to deposit this amount within 15 days or to file the objections if any, failing which this amount shall be transferred in the account of the complainant, but the complainant neither paid this amount nor filed any objection. Resultantly, this amount was added in the bill dated 28.3.2014  in the column of sundry charges and the complainant is bound to pay this amount  to the Opposite Party.    Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the meter of the complainant became defective and the same was changed vide  MCO No.M13/6924 dated 24.8.2013 effective from 27.8.2013. Earlier bills were issued to the complainant on average basis and bill dated 28.9.2013 Ex.C2 was issued to the complainant for the period  from 2.8.2013 to 27.9.2013 and during this period, the meter was changed effective from 27.8.2013. Resultantly, the bill from 2.8.2013 to 27.8.2013 was made on average basis for 25 days and the billing from 28.9.2013 to 27.9.2014 was made on the basis of actual consumption of electricity. Resultantly, the account of the complainant was overhauled vide  half margin No. 504 dated 21.2.2014 E.OP2. The complainant  became liable to pay consumption charges of 483 units for the period from 2.8.2013 to 27.8.2013 as per the calculations i.e. 1102/57x25=483 units and the complainant consumed 2043 units from 27.8.2013 (date of change of meter) to 27.9.2013. As such, the complainant became liable   to pay consumption charges  of 2043 units +  483 units=2526 units and after giving adjustment of consumption charges of 1102 units already paid by the complainant, the complainant became liable to pay actual consumption charges to the tune of Rs.10,505/- as per half margin  No.504 dated 21.2.2014 Ex.OP2. Resultantly, notice in the form of  memo dated 27.3.2014 Ex.OP3 was issued to the complainant  requiring the complainant to deposit this amount within 15 days or to file the objections, if any, failing which this amount shall be transferred to the account of the complainant and shall be charged in the current consumption bill of the complainant. This notice was sent to the complainant, but the consumer/ complainant refused to receive this notice on 28.3.2014 and the Opposite Party added this amount in the current consumption charges bill of the complainant dated 28.3.2014 Ex.C2. No doubt, the Opposite Party is justified in charging this amount  of Rs.10,505/- from the complainant, but the Opposite Party did not follow  the proper procedure before adding this amount in the current consumption bill of the complainant Ex.C2 i.e. Opposite Party did not properly followed the instructions as contained in   Regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party because it can not be said that memo dated 27.3.2014 Ex.OP3 was issued to the complainant and the complainant refused to accept this notice on 28.3.2014 and the Opposite Party added this amount in the current consumption charges bill of the complainant dated 28.3.2014, whereas as per this notice/ memo No. 426 dated 27.3.2014 Ex.OP3, the complainant was  required to deposit this amount within 15 days or to file objections, if any, but the complainant was not given this time of 15 days to deposit this amount or to file the objections, if any. Resultantly, this memo dated 27.3.2014 Ex.OP3 has not been properly followed by the Opposite Party in letter and spirit.
9. Consequently, we hold that this demand of Rs.10,505/-raised by the Opposite Party from the complainant in the current consumption bill of the complainant dated 28.3.2014  Ex.C2 is not tenable and as such, the same is hereby set aside. However, the Opposite Party is at liberty to raise this demand afresh 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: 07-07-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member