BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 591 of 2015
Date of Institution: 23.9.2015
Date of Decision: 2.06.2016
Lakha Singh aged 28 years S/o S. Harbhajan Singh, resident of Village Vallah, Tehsil & District Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Punjab State Power Corporation through its SDO Fatehpur Rajputan, Nawan Pind, Tehsil & Distt. Amritsar
- The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11/12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Jaswinder Jaswal,Adv.
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. Lakha Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant is having an electricity connection bearing account No. A51VH510064P installed in his residential house situated at Village Vallah,Tehsil and District Amritsar having sanctioned load of 0.96KW. The ownership of this residential house, in which the connection is installed, is in the name of father of the complainant . The complainant has been paying all the bills issued by the opposite party since its installation . In the month of Feb, 2015, the last bill of Rs. 5000/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party against receipt issued in his favour. The meter of the complainant alongwith two other meters of the neighbourers were installed in a big meter box . In the month of March, 2015, the meter of the complainant alongwith two other meters of the neighbourers namely Surinder Singh & Navtej Singh were burnt at the same time. The complainant reported the matter of burnt meter to the opposite party. Accordingly, the officials of the opposite party visited the spot, checked the burnt meter and provided direct supply of electricity to the house of the complainant and assured that the burnt meter will be replaced with the new one within a short period. But the opposite party failed to remove the burnt meter and to install the new meter in its place. Ultimately complainant moved an application dated 26.5.2015 to the opposite party No.1 which was duly received by Er.Navjot Singh on the same day. After that , he alongwith some other officials came to the spot and inspected the burnt meters , but neither any spot inspection report was prepared nor any LCR report was recorded on the spot and they assured to replace the burnt meter within a short period . It is worthwhile to mention here that after Feb,2015 no bill was issued to the complainant and he had been visited the office of the SDO time and again regarding billing status, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other . However, complainant enquired the matter from the deptt. at his personal level and came to know about the billing status of his connection which is given below :-
Period Reading Status amount
4/15 3271 to 3271 MMC 383/-
6/15 3271 to 10501 7230 units Rs.54003/-
8/15 10501 to 10984 483 units Rs.57,174/-
The aforesaid billing status is totally wrong, incorrect and against the actual and factual position . The complainant never consumed electricity to such an amount and the amount of Rs. 54003/- shown for the period 6/15 is totally wrong, incorrect and against the actual consumption. The complainant also obtained recent bill for the period 8/2015 for Rs. 57,120/-before due date and Rs. 57174/- after due date in which the SOP/energy charges of Rs. 49,837/- have been wrongly shown in which the old reading is shown as 10501 and new reading is shown as 10984 units. On receipt of bill, complainant visited the opposite party and showed his previous bills and requested him to correct this bill and to issue him correct bill of actual consumption, but they have been putting him off under one pretext or the other . The complainant again visited the opposite party and requested him to issue correct bill by withdrawing the said bill of 8/15 but they flatly refused to do so and rather directed the complainant to make payment of full amount claimed in this bill, otherwise his supply shall be disconnected because there is no fault or lapse on the part of the complainant. On 19.9.2015 JE Navjot Singh alongwith 4 other officials of the department came to the premises of the complainant and illegally disconnected the electricity supply to the premises of the complainant which was earlier made direct from the mains by the JE. They also removed the old meter alongwith wires and taken away inspite of the protest raised by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant approached the authorities of the opposite party and requested them to restore his electricity supply and also showed his willingness to pay the correct bill amount whichever is found due against him, but they refused to do so. Due to this illegal act, the complainant and his family members suffered a lot of harassment, inconvenience as the electricity is the dire need these days. The complainant is ready to deposit the charges of new meter to be replaced with the burnt meter. The complainant has sought for following reliefs vide instant complaint as under:-
(a) Opposite parties may be directed to restore the electricity supply to the premises of the complainant and to replace the burnt meter with the new one immediately, on receipt of its cost.
(b) Opposite parties may be directed to withdraw the disputed bills of 4/15, 6/15 and 8/15 and to issue correct bills to the complainant.
( c) Compensation of Rs. 25000/- be also awarded for suffering mental pain, agony and harassment at the hands of the opposite parties.
(d) They may also be directed to pay cost of proceedings Rs. 10000/-
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter-alia that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party as the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that complainant made a concocted story to mislead this Forum. It was denied that meter of the complainant was burnt. It was also denied that officials of the department visited the spot and direct supply to the house of the complainant was made. It was rather submitted that the electricity meter of the complainant was OK and in the month of June 2013 a bill of 7230 units of Rs. 54003/- was issued according to rules and regulations of the PSPCL, The complainant never challenged his electricity meter for checking in ME Lab. If complainant has any doubt about the functioning of his electricity meter, he can challenge the same after depositing meter challenge fee with the opposite party for checking his meter in the ME Lab. The complainant did not make the payment for the month of June 2015 and the said amount of Rs. 54003/- was added in his regular electricity bill for the month of August 2015. The complainant again did not make the payment and ultimately his account was declared PDCO vide PDCO No. 14/46908 dated 18.9.2015. After that meter of the complainant was removed from the premises of the complainant according to rules and regulations of the opposite party. It was denied that bill for the month of June 2015 was issued according to actual consumption of electricity and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh. J.S. Jaswal,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of application dated 26.5.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of billing status Ex.C-3, copies of bills Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, copy of bill receipt Ex.C-6, copy of bill Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Anil Sharma,Adv.counsel for opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Shashipal,AEE Ex.OP1, copy of consumption data Ex.OP2, copy of PDCO Ex.OP3, copy of RCO Ex.OP4 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 facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that meter of the complainant alongwith two other meters installed in a big box, was burnt and the complainant requested the opposite party to replace the burnt meter with new one . The opposite party assured that the burnt meter will be replaced within a short period. But the opposite party failed to remove the burnt meter and to install the new meter in its place for a long period . According to the complainant after the month of Feb,2015, no bill was issued to the complainant and he had been visiting the office of the opposite party time and again regarding billing status but to no avail. But , however, the complainant at his personal level enquired the matter from the deptt and came to know the billing status of his connection which is given below:-
Period Reading Status amount
4/15 3271 to 3271 MMC 383/-
6/15 3271 to 10501 7230 units Rs.54003/-
8/15 10501 to 10984 483 units Rs.57,174/-
In the bill of 8/2015 for an amount Rs. 57,174/- ,in which Rs. 49,837/- has been wrongly claimed as S.O.P/energy charges and the old reading is shown as 10501 and new reading is shown as 10984. The reading and the amount shown in this bill is quite illegal, wrong and arbitrary just to harass and pressurize the complainant . However, the complainant is ready to pay the actual consumption charges if the bill is corrected . But however, from the burnt meter reading cannot be noted. In this case, before charging the disputed amount in the current consumption bill of the complainant, no prior notice was issued to the complainant which shows that opposite party has not complied with the principle of natural justice and fair play. Moreover, it is settled proposition of law that in case of defective meter, the opposite party was obliged to get the electric meter tested from the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant. But the same was also not resorted to for the reasons best known to the opposite party. As a matter of fact, the electric meter was required to be examined from the ME Lab and only then the process regarding over-hauling of the account of the complainant could have been undertaken. Moreover, if any discrepancy in consumption was found , it was mandatory for the opposite party to have issued legal notice calling upon the complainant to explain his position. As per regulation 124.1 of Electricity Supply Regulations, opposite party is supposed to issue separate notice for any payment to be raised to the complainant over and above the current consumption charges . Since mandatory provisions have not been complied with in charging the amount in current consumption bill, as such, the bills for the period of 4/15, 6/15 and 8/15 are not legally payable by the complainant and the demand raised vide said bills stand quashed. The opposite parties are directed to overhaul the disputed bills on average basis taking into account the consumption of electricity during the corresponding period of 4/14, 6/14 & 8/14. 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 : 02.06.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
