THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Complaint No. 185-14
Date of Institution : 1.4.2014
Date of Decision : 12.2.2015
Smt.Harbir Kaur wife of Sh. Dhian Singh, resident of H.No. A-396, New Amritsar,Amritsar
.....Complainant
Vs.
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman,Patiala
XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Mall Mandi,Amritsar
SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Mall Mandi,Amritsar
.....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Sanjeev Prasher, Adv
For the opposite parties : Sh.Vijay Sharma,Adv.
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Harbir Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she is the holder of electric connection bearing account No. C38TC570631A under DS category which was installed at her residential premises. In the month of December 2013 complainant
-2-
received bill of Rs. 13820/- for the consumption of 8357 units and the payment of the said bill was made by the complainant to the opposite party. Complainant was surprised to receive an exorbitant bill of Rs, 56,250/- dated 10.3.2014 for the consumption of 10241 units. The complainant requested the opposite party not to raise such illegal demand and to withdraw the same. Complainant also served legal notice upon the opposite party, but opposite party did not bother to give any reply to the legal notice. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to withdraw the said illegal demand vide bill dated 10.3.2014. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that in the year 1/2012 to 12/2012 the complainant had got issued bills of lesser consumption than actual consumption in connivance with meter reader . When the meter reading was taken on 15.1.2013 the meter was showing consumption of 34856 with meter status 'O' and then calculating the entire consumption from 1/2012 to 15.1.2013 a bill for 10856 units amounting to Rs. 80094/- was issued to the complainant. Aggreived from this bill complainant moved to Dispute Settlement Committee challenging the bill of Rs. 80094/- and deposited Rs. 20000/- i.e. 20% of the bill amount as per PSPCL rules vide receipt No. 62 dated 11.2.2013. The Disputes Settlement Committee vide its order dated 23.4.2013 concluded that bills issued to the complainant were not on the basis of actual meter reading but with 'N' code and bill of Rs. 80094/- for difference 10856 units was rightly issued to the complainant and he was ordered to pay balance amount of Rs. 60094/- + Rs.2404/- within 10 days . The complainant had not deposited the bill of further period upto 15.3.2013. Thereafter next bill upto 16.5.2013 was issued with 'F' code amounting to Rs. 73356/- again the complainant deposited only Rs. 68500/- on 19.7.2013 and in this way the complainant remained
-3-
defaulter of payment of Rs. 6065/- upto 16.5.2013. Further next bill upto 20.7.2013 of Rs. 10028/- with 'F' code with reading 698 units was issued which the complainant remained failed to pay. Actual consumption from 17.5.2013 to 20.7.2013 was 3205 units. The next bill upto 14.9.2013 with 'C' code of 394 units was issued for Rs. 20889/- out of which complainant paid Rs. 9910/- only, whereas actual consumption was 2394 units. Next bill upto 18.11.2013 with 'O' code of 1834 units of Rs. 14573/- was issued. Thus the complainant herself remained defaulter towards the opposite party. On 10.3.2014 a bill of Rs. 56230/- was issued by making calculations of the previous bills with 'N',F and C codes and after adjusting the amount paid by the complainant . The demand of Rs. 56250/- has rightly been raised by the opposite party vide bill dated 10.3.2014 . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20.
4. On the other hand opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amit Deepak,AEE Ex.OP1, copy of consumption data Ex.OP2, copy of memo No. 735 dated 20.11.2013 Ex.OP3, copy of detail Ex.OP4, consumption data Ex.Op5, copy of memo No. 1171 dated 4.6.2013 Ex.OP6, copy of minutes of DSC dated 23.4.2013 Ex.OP7.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant is the consumer of electricity vide electric connection account No. C38TC570631A under DS category. The complainant alleges that she has been making payment of all the bills to the
-4-
opposite party regularly without committing any default. However, on 18.11.2013 the complainant received bill Ex.C-8 amounting to Rs. 13820/- for the consumption of 1834 units. Thereafter complainant received bill dated 10.3.2014 Ex.C-10 of Rs. 56250/-. The complainant alleges that the demand raised by the opposite party vide this bill is totally baseless and eroneous . The complainant approached the opposite party to rectify this bill, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Then the complainant issued legal notice dated 22.3.2014 Ex.C-12 to the opposite party but the opposite party did not bother to even give any reply to 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 for the period from 1/2012 to 12/2012 i.e for the whole year of 2012, the complainant had got issued bills of lessor consumption than actual consumption in connivance with the meter reader with 'N' code of status of the meter. When the meter was checked on 15.1.2013 it was showing consumption of 34856 with meter status 'O' and then calculating the entire consumption from 1/2012 to 15.1.2013 a bill dated 15.1.2013 Ex.C-17 for 10856 units amounting to Rs. 80094/- was issued to the complainant. Aggreived from this bill, complainant moved to Disputes Settlement Committee of the opposite party challenging this bill by depositing Rs. 20000/- i.e 20% of the bill amount as per opposite party rules vide receipt No. 62 dated 11.2.2013. The Disputes Settlement Committee had given full opportunity to the complainant as well as the department and after going through the entire consumption and payment record of the complainant, held vide its order dated 23.4.2013 Ex.OP7 that from the period 1/2012 to 12/2012 bills issued to the complainant were on the basis oif actual meter reading but for 'N' code and bill of Rs. 80094/- Ex.C-17 dated 15.1.2013 for difference of 10856 was rightly issued to the complainant by the opposite party and the complainant was ordered to pay the balance amount of Rs.
-5-
60094/- + Rs.2404/- within 10 days from the date of order. But the complainant did not deposit the balance amount. Thereafter next bill upto 15.5.2013 was issued with 'F' code amounting to Rs. 73,356/- . Again that bill the complainant deposited Rs. 68500/- only on 19.7.2013 and the complainant remained defaulter of payment of Rs. 6065/- upto 16.5.2013.Further next bill upto 20.7.2013 of Rs. 10028/- with 'F' code with consumption of 698 units was issued. But the complainant failed to pay this bill. Opposite party alleges that actual consumption from 17.5.2013 to 20.7.2013 was 3205 units. Next bill upto 12.9.2013 with 'C' code for 394 units was issued for Rs.20889/- against which the complainant paid Rs. 9910/- only, whereas the actual consumption from 21.7.2013 to 14.9.2013 was 2394 units. The next bill upto 18.11.2013 Ex.C-8 with 'O' code of 1834 units for Rs. 14573/- was issued. The complainant remained defaulter in payment of bills properly. On 10.3.2014 bill of Rs. 56,230/- Ex.C-10 was issued by making calculations of the previous bills with N,F and C codes and after adjusting the amount paid by th complainant for the aforesaid period. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that the demand of Rs. 56250/- was rightly made through bill dated 10.3.2014 Ex.C-10. He,therefore, 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 complainant was not regularly paying the bills issued by the opposite party for the consumption of electricity. From the record particularly the consumption data of the complainant produced by the opposite party Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP5, the complainant was issued bills of lessor consumption than actual consumption for the period from 1/2012 to 12/2012 with 'N' code . However, the meter was OK and on the record it was shown as 'O' code . These bills were issued to the complainant in connivance of the complainant with meter reader as alleged by the opposite party. The reading of the meter of the complainant was taken on 15.1.2013 which was 34856 , as such
-6-
the complainant has upto 15.1.2013 consumed 10856 units because reading on 23.12.2011 was 24000 only. Resultantly bill dated 15.1.2013 Ex.C-17 of 10856 units of Rs. 80094/- was issued to the complainant. The complainant approached the Dispute Settlement Committee of the opposite party challenging this bill of Rs. 80094/- by depositing requisite amount i.e.20% of the bill as per opposite paty rules vide receipt No. 62 datd 11.2.2013. The Disputes Settlement Committee after giving full and proper opportunity to the complainant as well as department and after going through the consumption as well as payment record of the complainant vide its order dated 23.4.2013 Ex.OP7 held that from the period from 1/2012 to 12/2012 the bills issued to the complainant were not on the basis of actual meter reading but with 'N' code, whereas the meter was having 'O' code and the bill of Rs. 80094/- Ex.C-17 for difference of 10056 units was rightly issued to the complainant and the complainant was ordered to pay balance amount alongwith interest. But the complainant did not deposit this amount upto 15.5.2013. Thereafter the complainant was issued bill dated 16.5.2013 with 'F' code amounting to Rs. 73356/- against which the complainant deposited only Rs. 68500/- on 19.7.2013 , in this way the complainant remained defaulter of Rs. 6065/- . The next bill upto 20.7.23013 of Rs. 10028/- with 'F' code with reading 698 units was issued . But the complainant did not pay this bill. Whereas the actual consumption from 17.5.2013 to 20.7.2013 was 3205 units. The next bill upto 14.9.2013 with 'C' code of 394 units was issued for Rs. 20889/- against which the complainant paid Rs. 9910/- only as is evident from the consumption/payment data of the complainant Ex.OP2. Whereas actual consumption from 21.7.2013 to 14.9.2013 was 2394 units . The next bill dated 18.11.2013 with O' code of 1834 units for Rs. 14573/- was issued , against which the complainant paid Rs. 13820/- only on 16.12.2013. The next bill dated 6.2.2014 was issued to the complainant with 'N' code for Rs.,9375/- which was not paid by the complainant. Resultantly this bill
-7-
dated 10.3.2014 Ex.C-10 was issued to the complainant for Rs. 56250/- for consumption of 1884 units which included arrears of previous bill and the complainant did not pay this amount rather filed the present complaint.
9. From the entire above discussion particularly the consumption and payment data chart of the complainant produced by the opposite party Ex.OP2 and OP5, it stands fully proved on record that complainant was a defaulter and she has been issued the impugned bill dated 10.3.2014 for Rs. 56250/- on the basis of actual consumption made by the complainant which included arrears of previous bill i.e. Rs. 9275/- dated 6.2.2014 which was not paid by the complainant. As such the opposite party was justified in charging this amount from the complainant through impugned bill dated 10.3.2014 Ex.C-10.
10. Resultantly we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
12.2.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)
Member
