THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 606-14

Date of Institution : 18.11.2014

Date of Decision : 27.05.2015

Shri Krishan Kumar Nayyar son of Sh. Kundan Lal Nayyar, resident of House No. 14, Dasonda Singh Road, Lawrence Road Extension, Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Assistant Executive Engineer, Civil Lines, PSPCL Office Municipal Corporation, Hall Gate,Amritsar

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh. Yogesh Sharma,Advocate

For the opposite parties : Sh. Manohar Singh,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Krishan Kumar Nayyar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is holder of electric connection bearing account No. C16LR051023P under DS category which has been installed at his premises and he has been making payment of the electricity bills regularly. According to the complainant he received a bill dated 17.7.2014 amounting to Rs. 21460/-. Complainant has alleged that he was surprised to see the bill that neither the last reading nor the reading taken on 17.7.2014 is mentioned in this bill. The average consumption of the meter of the complainant is ranged around Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 9000/- bi-monthly. Complainant sent a letter dated 25.7.2014 to the opposite party alongwith copy of bill and requested the opposite party to correct the bill, but opposite party did not pay any heed to make correction in the bill. The complainant made the entire amount of the bill to avoid disconnection. On 27.8.2014 complainant served a legal notice upon the opposite party to make rectification in the bill, but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to rectify the bill amounting to Rs. 21460/- and to pay interest @ 18% on the excessive amount received from the complainant. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeard and filed written version in which it was submitted that bill dated 17.7.2014 was issued for Rs. 21460/-. The bill was prepared by the machine at the site. The previous bill dated 9.5.2014 was issued on the reading 10546. The alleged bill was issued on the reading 13413 i.e. 13413-10546= 2867 units. The bill was prepared as per the consumption of the meter for 69 days. It was submitted that on receiving complaint, Er. Kuldeep Kumar AAE verified the record vide checking register No. 57/583 dated 30.7.2014. The detail of alleged bill was supplied to the complainant vide memo No. 1605 dated 19.9.2014. It was submitted that the status of the meter from 9/13 to 11/14 is “O” code . It was further submitted that complainant alleged allegations regarding working of the meter but he has not challenged the meter nor deposited the meter challenge fee . While submitting that the bill dated 17.7.2014 has rightly been issued and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of complaint dated 25.7.2014 Ex.C-1, postal receipt Ex.C-2, disputed bill Ex.C-3, legal notice Ex.C-4, postal receipt Ex.C-5, bill dated 12.9.2013 Ex.C-6, payment receipt Ex.C-7, bill dated 14.11.2013 Ex.C-8, payment receipt Ex.C-9, bill dated 15.1.2014 Ex.C-10, payment receipt Ex.C-11, bill dated 12.3.2014 Ex.C-12, payment receipt Ex.C-13, bill dated 9.5.2014 Ex.C-14,. Payment receipt Ex.C-15.

4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Kuldeep Kumar AEE Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Kuldeep Kumar ,AEE Ex.OP2/A, copy of checking report dated 30.7.2014 Ex.OP1, copy of bill ledger Ex.OP2, consumption data Ex.OP3, copy of memo No. 1605 dated 19.9.2014 Ex.OP4, copy of detail of bill ledger Ex.OP5.

5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties , arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for both the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it stands proved on record that complainant is the consumer of electricity vide electric connection bearing account No. C16LR051023P under DS category having sanctioned load of 5.70KW. The complainant alleges that he received bill dated 17.7.2014 Ex.C-3 for Rs. 21460/-. this bill was neither stating the last reading nor the reading taken on 17.7.2014. The complainant alleges that his normal bi-monthly consumption bill is around Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 9000/-, whereas this bill of Rs. 21460/- is highly inflated. The complainant approached the oppsoite party through application Ex.C-1 that bill is highly excessive, the same may be corrected. However, the complainant deposited the amount of this bill just to avoid disconnection. But the opposite party did not correct the bill nor refunded the amount 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 the bill dated 17.7.2014 for Rs. 21460/- was issued on the basis of actual consumption of electricity by the complainant . The previous bill dated 9.5.2014 was issued on the reading 10546, whereas the bill in question dated 17.7.2014 Ex.C-3 was issued on the reading of 13413 i.e. for 2867 units (13413-10546= 2867 units). This bill was prepared for 69 days which is clear from ledger Ex.OP2 as well as the consumption data of the complainant Ex.OP3. However, due to mistake of computer the earlier reading and the present reading of the meter could not be mentioned as the computer slipped that portion on the bill Ex.C-3. On the application received from the complainant , the officials of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and checked the meter on 30.7.2014 who submitted his report Ex.OP1 in which the visiting team submitted that meter is installed in the premises of the complainant and on that day its last reading ws 13738. In the bill exbt.C-3 the last reading and the present reading of the meter was not mentioned. So the same may be corrected. Resultantly the opposite party issued leter memo No. 1605 dated 19.9.2014 Ex.OP4 (inadvertently written as 1606 in the written version) to the complainant in which entire position was explained to the complainant that the last reading on 9.5.2014 was 10546 whereas the reading on 17.7.2014 (date of issue of the bill) was 13413, as such this bill was for 69 days and of 2867 units. Th complainant was further told that if he requires further informtion, he can contact the office on any working day from 9.00 a.m to 5.00 p.m. The detail of the ledger was also sent to the complainant. 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 complainant is the consumer of electricity vide account No. LR051023P under DS category with sanctioned load 5.70KW. The impugned bill dated 17.7.2014 was issued by the opposite party in which the computer missed earlier reading and the present reading of the meter. The bill was for Rs. 21460/-. The complainant approached the opposite party vide letter Ex.C-1 stating that the bill in question is highly excessive and arbitrary and is not in consonance with earlier bills issued by the opposite party. Resultantly the staff of the opposite party checked the meter of the complainant on 30.7.2014 vide report Ex.OP1 in which they submitted that the meter of the complainant is installed in the premises of the complainant so there is no possibility of outside interference. However, in the bill Ex.C-3 dated 17.7.2014 the last reading and the reading on the date 17.7.2014 could not be mentioned. So the same may be corrected. Resultantly the opposite party sent letter vide memo No. 1605 dated 19.9.2014 Ex.OP4 to the complainant in which the complainant has been fully informed that this bill is regarding actual consumption of the electricity by the complainant. The last reading on 9.5.2014 was 10546 and the reading on 17.7.2014 was 13413, so this bill is for 2867 units. This bill is of 69 days consumption of electricity. Not only this the complainant was also supplied with the copy of ledger Ex.OP5. The opposite party also produced on record copy of the ledger Ex.OP2 as well as consumption data of the complainant Ex.OP3 which fully proves that the last reading of the meter of the complainant on 9.5.2014 was 10546 and the reading on the meter of the complainant on 17.7.2014 was 13413. The complainant never challenged the meter nor deposited any meter checking fee with the opposite party. As such there was no dispute regarding the correctness of the meter. The bill in question is for 69 days and for peak summer season when ACs are working at full speed, whereas the other bills are for less than 60 days. All these things have been duly explained to the complainant because the computer slipped and did not mention the last reading as well as the reading of the meter of the complainant on 17.7.2014 inadvertently and everything has been explained to the complainant vide letter Ex.OP4. So the bill in question is quite proper and as per actual consumption of electricity made by the complainant during this period from 9.5.2014 to 17.7.2014.

9. Consequently we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to 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.

27.05.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member