BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 11 of 2016
Date of Institution: 4.1.2016
Date of Decision: 22.6.2016
Gobind Walab Joshi S/o Shri Mohan Chand Joshi, aged about 62 years, R/o Mohan Joshi, Near Baba Meer, Nehru Colony, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chief Managing Director, service through SDO, Gopal Nagar Sub Division, Amritsar
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Nitin Madaan,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sh.Anil Sharma,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Gobind Walab Joshi complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 &13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant is having a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. A22EG640501X in his name and being a consumer of the services of the opposite party, he has the right to file the present complaint. The complainant is a law abiding citizen and has been regularly making payment of the electricity bills issued by the opposite party from time to time without ever committing any default. It is mentionable here that the complainant is a man of limited means and his aforesaid connection is of 1 KW only . The usual consumption history ranges between 80 to 130 units only in the previous six billing cycles as is evident from the reading of the disputed bill itself. Copy of the bill is attached). The complainant was shocked to receive a bill dated 14.11.2015 vide which the opposite party has demanded Rs. 6520/- on account of excessive recording of consumed units. On the receipt of the said bill, complainant approached the opposite party several times to know the reason behind the said excess charges but the opposite party never paid any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant. No explanation was provided to him rather threats of disconnection in the event of non payment of the said amount, were given. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service because the opposite party is duty bound to state the reasons behind the levying of excessive amount in the bill in dispute. The aforesaid demand for payment of Rs. 6520/- in the bill dated 14.11.2015 issued by the opposite party is unreasonable, arbitrary, exorbitant and thus illegal. Since prior to the issuance of the aforesaid impugned bill, neither any notice has been served upon the complainant nor opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant which is a clear violation of the principle of natural justice . The complainant has sought the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
i) That opposite party be directed to withdraw the impugned illegal demand of Rs. 6520/- raised vide bill dated 14.11.2015 and to set-aside the said excessive bill .
ii) That the opposite party may be restrained from disconnecting the connection of the complainant for non payment of disputed amount.
iii) Opposite party be ordered to pay Rs. 20000/- as compensation and Rs. 10000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the case by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter-alia that complaint as framed is not maintainable as the complainant has no cause of action to file the instant complaint ; that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum. On merits, it is stated that according to policy of the PSPCL, the mechanical meter of the complainant was changed with new electronic meter vide MCO No. 533262 dated 17.8.2015. After that from the month of 07/15 to 09/2015 average bills were issued to the complainant. In the month of 27.11.2015 bill for 899 units for Rs. 6520/- was issued according to actual consumption of the complainant as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL. Remaining facts narrated in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Nitin Madaan, Adv.counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of Aadhar card of the complainant Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 14.11.2015 Ex.C-3, copy of bill dated 20.1.2015 Ex.C-4, copy of payment receipt of Rs. 720/- dated 10.6.2015 Ex,.C-5, copy of payment receipt of Rs. 3300/- dated 19.1.2016 Ex.C-6, copy of bill dated 20.1.2016 Ex.C-7, copy of print out of SMS dated 28.2.2016 Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Anil Sharma,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Ashwani Kumar,AEE Ex.OP1, copy of consumption data Ex.OP2, copy of MCO Ex.OP3, copies of bills Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. From the appreciation of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the opposite parties are deficient in service. The complainant has been regularly paying the bills raised by the opposite party from time to time and there was nothing payable or due against the complainant. The opposite party has raised a demand of Rs. 6520/- vide bill dated 14.11.2015 , copy whereof is Ex.C-3. As a matter of fact the opposite party has changed the meter of the complainant with a new meter and the old meter was sent to ME Lab for checking. On the basis of the ME Lab checking, bill in dispute has been issued. Neither the complainant nor any of his representative was present when the checking of the meter in dispute was carried out at ME Lab. A perusal of the old consumption data i.e.Ex.OP2 shows that the monthly consumption of the complainant ranged between 82 to 139 units, whereas the impugned bills Ex.C-3 recorded the consumption of 899 units within a period of 50 days only. Consumption of 899 units within a period of 50 days becomes highly improbable taking into consideration the fact that load of electric connection in dispute was 1 KW only. To cover up their above stated deficiency , the opposite party in its written version has put-forth a false story of changing of the electricity meter of the complainant, whereas no defect was intimated to the complainant regarding the working of meter. If at all, the opposite party has changed the meter, it has done so without following the procedure. Neither the old meter was removed in the presence of the complainant nor it was opened in his presence . No consent letter of the complainant was obtained for the alleged meter change. No challan was prepared nor any written notice was served. Opposite party has nowhere stated in the reply whether the meter was slow or not working properly or what was the reason behind changing of the meter. The alleged MCO No. 533262 has been issued in an illegal and arbitrary manner . Therefore, the same is not valid in the eyes of law. Opposite party has failed to justify the charging of excessive amount from the complainant and has simply stated in his reply that the meter was changed according to the policy of PSPCL. Opposite party has failed to produce on record the essential documents like ME Lab report, Audit report and the document in support of the aforesaid policy of PSPCL, if any. The absence of these material documents renders the whole story of meter change, a mere eye wash only. Regarding the factum of exhorbitant bill demand, our own Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Jagat Pal Vs. PSPCL 2015(2) CLT 222, has laid down that sanctioned load of the electric connection of the complainant is only 0.52 KW. It is not possible for him to consume 2000 units within two months (i.e. the period 3/3/2009 to 3/5/2009). Consumption data clearly proves that the meter was faulty. Therefore, the recording of consumption from 14 units to 2000 units which is not possible at a sanctioned load of 0.52 KW unless the energy is used unauthorizedly. The complainant challenged the reading of the meter dated 8.6.2009 vide Ex.C-2.The matter of issuing exorbitant bills to the complainant were in the knowledge of the opposite parties. However, they failed in their duties by not providing any guidance to complainant about it nor they told him to deposit the meter checking fee in order to get the meter tested in the ME Lab. It was their duty to get the matter investigated at their own level and take appropriate action to check the working of the meter or to justify the excessive consumption .As per the instructions of the opposite parties, the exception in variations in consumption is to be verified after entering the same in the variation register, which was not done by the opposite parties . The District Forum did not appreciate the facts and rather dismissed the complaint. Sequel to the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is accepted by setting-aside the order of the District Forum and the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to check the meter of the complainant in ME Lab and complainant is directed to deposit the meter challenge fee with the opposite parties in order to check the functionality of his meter within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
7. The authority (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case on all its fours and demand raised vide impugned bill Ex.C-3 is set-aside. However, the opposite party is at liberty to raise the demand again against the complainant by following proper procedure as prescribed in regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of PSPCL.The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copies of the orders 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.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 22.6.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
