| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 368 of 2014 Date of Institution: 10-07-2014 Date of Decision: 21-07-2015 S.Kulwinder Singh son of Late S.Mangal Singh, resident of Opposite Simran Medicos, Baba Sulla Road, Patti Dadu Jalla, Village: Sultanwind, Tehsil and District Amritsar. Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala service through SDO, Mall Mandi 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. Vikram Puri, Advocate. For the Opposite Party: Sh. Anil Sharma, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Kulwinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that Mangal Singh father of the complainant obtained electricity connection bearing account No.SW641140M under D.S.Category from the Opposite Party in his residential premises. Said Mangal Singh father of the complainant has since expired and after his death, the complainant is using the aforesaid connection and regularly paying the electricity bills to the Opposite Party without any default. Complainant alleges that the bills of the complainant ranges between Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- as is quite clear from the previous bills and the last such normal bill was dated 4.12.2012 for Rs.1270/- which was duly paid by the complainant on 6.12.2012. As per the policy of the PSPC Ltd., the officials of the Opposite Party asked the complainant to deposit Rs.520/- as meter fee for replacement of old meter with new one and the same was duly deposited by the complainant against receipt No. 420 dated 2.1.2013 and accordingly, the old meter was removed from the premises of the complainant and direct supply was made to the connection of the complainant by the officials of the Opposite Party with assurance that the new meter would be installed at his premises within a week or so and no bill in February, 2013 was issued to the complainant and on enquiry, the office computer of the Opposite Party showed the amount of Rs.950/- payable by the complainant for the said month and the same was duly paid by the complainant on 20.2.2013. Thereafter, the Opposite Party started issuing excessive and exorbitant bills to the complainant. The Opposite Party issued bill dated 6.4.2013 for Rs.6440/- and the same was got rectified from the Opposite Party on 18.4.2013 against this bill. The Opposite Party again issued another excessive bill dated 5.6.2013 for Rs.12430/- and the same was got rectified from the Opposite Party and accordingly Rs.4440/- was paid by the complainant on 10.7.2013. The Opposite Party again issued another excessive bill dated 11.8.2013 for Rs.10060/- and the same was got rectified from the Opposite Party and accordingly Rs.2410/- was paid by the complainant on 14.8.2013. The Opposite Party again issued another excessive bill dated 3.10.2013 for Rs.13209/- and the same was got rectified from the Opposite Party and accordingly Rs.1800/- was paid by the complainant on 14.10.2013. On 31.10.2013 the new meter was installed at the premises of the complainant, but again the Opposite Party issued excessive and exorbitant bill dated 5.12.2013 for Rs.7315/- and the same was got rectified and the complainant paid Rs.2900/- against this bill on 27.1.2014. Complainant further alleges that although the Opposite Party is bound to issue bi-monthly bills to the complainant, but after 5.12.2013, the Opposite Party has not issued any bills to the complainant for the month of February, 2014 and April, 2014. The complainant has made repeated requests to the Opposite Party to issue him bills of actual consumption so as to enable him to pay the same, but the Opposite Party paid no heed to the requests of the complainant. However, on personal enquiry made by the complainant from the officials of the Opposite Party, it has transpired that as per the computer system of the Opposite Party, an amount of Rs.17151/- is shown to be outstanding against the complainant, but till ate, the Opposite Party has not provided any details to the complainant. The act of the Opposite Party in causing delay in installing new meter and then issuing excessive and exorbitant bills from 6.4.2013 to 5.12.2013 and then not issuing the bills for the months of February, 2014 and April, 2014 and further not refunding the excess payment received from the complainant on the basis of bills issued from 6.4.2013 to 5.12.2013 amounts to deficiency of service, unfair trade practice as well as gross negligence which has caused mental pain, agony, harassment as well as inconvenience to the complainant which also entitles the complainant to claim compensation. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to issue the regular bills from February, 2014 till date and continue issuing regular bills as per actual consumption. The Opposite Party may kindly be directed to refund the excessive payment received from the complainant for the period from 6.4.2013 to 5.12.2013. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was denied that the Opposite Party started issuing excessive and exorbitant bills to the complainant as the bill issued according to the rules and regulations of the corporation and corrected as per the request of the complainant. It was further averred that from January, 2014 the complainant has not made any payment to the Opposite Party and till April, 2014 Rs.6205/- is still pending against the complainant after giving adjustment in the amount of Rs.17151/-. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amit Deepak, AEE Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- 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.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant is beneficiary/ consumer of electricity bearing account No.SW641140M under D.S.Category from the Opposite Party. As per the consumption data of the complainant, the meter of the complainant became faulty and it was given ‘X’ code and the bills were issued to the complainant from 6.4.2013 to 5.12.2013 i.e. 5 bills dated 6.4.2013, 5.6.2013, 11.8.2013, 3.10.2013 and 5.12.2013 with ‘X’ code for 1000 units each bi-monthly. The Opposite Party could not produce any rules and regulations on the basis of which, the Opposite Party issued these bills to the complainant on the basis of 1000 units bi-monthly and thereafter, the Opposite Party used to receive part payment of these bills from the complainant leaving balance amount to be paid lateron. Thereafter, the Opposite Party changed the meter of the complainant by getting deposited meter change fee from the complainant amounting to Rs.520/- vide receipt Ex.C4.
- The Opposite Party could charge the bills from the complainant on the basis of rules and regulations in case the meter became faulty/ defective, but not arbitrarily as 1000 units bi-monthly, as was done in the present case for the period from 6.4.2013 to 5.12.2013. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party could not put forward any explanation as to on which basis, these bills were issued to the complainant @ 1000 units bi-monthly. Certainly, these bills issued by the Opposite Parties i.e bills dated 6.4.2013, 5.6.2013, 11.8.2013, 3.10.2013 and 5.12.2013 were not issued as per rules and regulations of the Opposite Party, rather arbitrarily without following any rules and regulations. So, certainly, the demand raised by the Opposite Party through these aforesaid 5 bills, is not sustainable.
- As such, the demand raised by the Opposite Party vide these 5 bills i.e. bills dated 6.4.2013, 5.6.2013, 11.8.2013, 3.10.2013 and 5.12.2013, is hereby set aside. However, the Opposite Party is entitled to charge the electricity consumption bills from the complainant for this period i.e. for the aforesaid 5 bills on the basis of consumption made by the complainant during the corresponding period of last year. The amount paid by the complainant against aforesaid 5 bills be adjusted against the future billing of the complainant. 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 cost. 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: 21-07-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
