DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.461 of 14-09-2011
Decided on 21-12-2011
Gurjit Singh S/o Sarabjit Singh, R/o village Bhokhra, Distt. Bathinda, aged about 24 years. .......Complainant
Versus
Chairman/Secretary, Punjab State Power Electricity Board, The Mall, Bathinda.
S.D.O., PSPCL, Sub Division, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. Naveen Goyal, counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding an electric connection bearing No.B16BKI4 40868W and has been paying the bills regularly. The complainant received a bill No.561193 dated 31.07.2011 for a sum of Rs.45,050/- and it has been mentioned in the said bill, the consumption of 30 units but Energy Charges of Rs.38329+6721=45,050/- has been shown in this bill. The complainant has alleged that the said bill is illegal and there is no reason mentioned in the said bill regarding the said demand. Thereafter, the complainant requested many times to the opposite parties to correct the said bill but to no effect rather threatened the complainant to disconnect his electric connection in case of non payment of the said amount. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to correct the above said bill alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and admitted that they have sent a bill dated 31.07.2011 for a sum of Rs.45,050/- to the complainant. The opposite parties have denied that the complainant had been paying the bills regularly rather he was issued the bills for consumption of electricity from March, 2010 till date he had made only part payment and the arrears were being shown in the bills as sundry charges. The opposite parties have every right to recover the said amount from the complainant. The said bill has been issued to the complainant as per rules and regulations of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited.
3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. Admittedly, the complainant is holding an electric connection bearing No.B16BKI440868W and he had received a bill No.561193 dated 31.07.2011 for a sum of Rs.45,050/-.
6. The complainant has alleged that he has been paying the bills regularly and in the above said bill, the consumption of electricity of the complainant has been shown as 30 units and Energy Charges of Rs.38329+ 6721 was shown as electricity duty. The complainant has challenged the said bill on various grounds and submitted that he had requested the opposite parties many times to correct the said bill but the opposite parties did not listen to his requests and threatened the complainant to disconnect the above said electric connection in case of non payment of the above said amount.
7. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant has not been paying the bills regularly. The complainant was issued a bill for consumption of electricity from March, 2010 till date he had made only part payment and the arrears were being shown in the bills as sundry charges. The opposite parties have further submitted that they have every right to disconnect the electricity connection in case the complainant failed to deposit the demanded amount in time.
8. Er. Ravinder Singh Sekhon, A.E.E., PSPCL has deposed in para No.2 of his affidavit Ex.R-1 that the complainant was issued the bills from time to time but the complainant has made only part payments and a sum of Rs.45,342/- are outstanding against the complainant upto 09/2011. The detail of the amount charged, has been mentioned in calculation sheet. The connection of the complainant was checked on 07.07.2010 and the checking staff found that the complainant is using the above said connection for agricultural purposes and on the basis of the above said checking, the account of the complainant was over hauled and the amount of difference was charged to the account of the complainant. The connection of the complainant was again checked by the checking staff and MCO was issued. The meter was removed from the premises of the complainant, the same was packed in the cardboard box and was sent to the ME Lab vide Challan dated 08.11.2010. The complainant was issued a notice for appearing before the ME Lab but inspite of issuance of the notice, the complainant did not come present in the ME Lab. The meter was checked in the ME Lab and the checking staff found that the ME seals of the meter were tempered. On inspection of the meter from inside, it was found that the complainant had tempered with the counter of the meter and had been controlling the consumption of electricity and it was a case of theft of energy. The meter was again packed and was handed over to the concerned JE for keeping the same in safe custody. The complainant was issued regular notices in this regard.
9. The reference of checking report has not been given by the opposite parties in their reply to the main complaint. In their written statement, they have never pleaded that the checking was conduced in the premises of the complainant. The opposite parties have produced Ex.R-2 i.e. checking report dated 07.07.2010. In this checking report, they have mentioned. “Meter was checked. In his premises, DS tariff is running whereas the said supply has been used for AP. In the said premises, the connection is used for liquor shop and also constructed an office for the same, CS tariff should be applied.”
This checking report has not been signed by the complainant or any of his representative. The version of the checking report is altogether different from the pleadings of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have also placed on file Ex.R-3 i.e. The ME Lab report. In this checking report, it has been written that the meter was taken out from the sealed cardboard box for checking in the presence of Er. Tarlochan Singh Brar, Sr. XEN, Er. Buta Singh, JE and Er. Kewal Krishan in the absence of the complainant. On checking the meter and after taking it out from the cardboard box, it was found that the ME seals of the meter were tempered and the meter was checked from inside and it was found that the consumer had tempered with the counter of the meter and had been controlling the electricity consumption. Hence, it was a case of theft of electricity. The meter was again packed and the same was handed over to the concerned JE for keeping in safe custody till further necessary action.
10. Er. Tarlochan Singh, Sr. XEN has deposed in his affidavit Ex.R-5 that the above mentioned facts and findings were reduced to writing on page No.42 of Book No.12 dated 27.05.2011. Checking report bearing No.42/12 dated 08.11.2010 was sent to the concerned Sub Division for taking further necessary action. In this affidavit, the opposite parties have themselves deposed that the meter was checked in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant but a perusal of checking report shows that it has been written, “Last Notice” but no such notice has been placed on file by the opposite parties. Thus, they have not followed their own procedure as provided under the Electricity Act and rules & regulations. Moreover, the versions of the opposite parties is different at different occasions.
11. The checking report has never been supplied to the complainant, no provisional order of assessment or final order of assessment has been placed on file, the ME Lab report has not been supplied to the complainant and the amount was directly demanded through bill dated 31.07.2010 and no reason has been quoted by the opposite parties for issuance of the demand of Rs.44,704/- in the column of current financial charges. The consumption data placed on file shows that the complainant is not paying the bills regularly. The opposite parties are free to recover the amount of consumed units.
12. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation and the amount of Rs.44,704/- shown in the column of current financial year is hereby quashed and the opposite parties are directed overhaul the account of the complainant and to send correct bill to the complainant for consumed units. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
21-12-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur) (Amarjeet Paul)
Member Member
