BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 199 of 2015

Date of Institution: 31.03.2015

Date of Decision: 28.07.2016

Mandir Shri Mukti Narayan Dham Trust (Regd.) Gali No.3, Green Field, Majitha, Amritsar through its Manager Shri Santosh Sharma.

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala service through the Assistant Executive Engineer, Gopal Nagar Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Vishal Sharma, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. N.S.Sandhu, Advocate

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Mandir Shri Mukti Narayan Dham Trust (Regd.) Amritsar through its Manager Shri Santosh Sharma has brought the instant complaint under section  11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant is registered trust under the Societies Act and can file the present complaint in its name. As such, the present complaint is being filed by the trust through its Manager Santosh Sharma who is duly authorized to file the present complaint against the Opposite Party for redressal of its  grievance vide resolution passed in the meeting of the trust held on 19.3.2015. The complainant trust is managing the affairs of a very famous Mandir of Lord Shri Balaji at the above noted address and various worshippers of Amritsar city particularly the residents of this locality daily visit the Mandir for worship.  In this mandir, many religious functions are being performed in the said mandir. The electricity supply to the said mandir is being provided by Opposite Party vide electric connection bearing account No. A22FG522585W under ‘Domestic Supply’ category. Said electric connection was installed in the name of Sudarshana Acharya. The complainant trust  had been  making payment of all the bills raised by the Opposite Party from time to time without committing any default. No amount is outstanding against the complainant except for the impugned bill. The Opposite Party is company registered  under Companies Act and formed under Electricity Act, 2003 and is providing service to its customer by providing electricity, which is essential service now a days, against consideration and is functioning through its field staff constituted in various divisions and sub divisions. Initially, said electricity connection was having sanctioned load of 5 KW and the meter bearing No. 34388 was installed in the premises of the Mandir for recording consumption of electricity.  The complainant trust applied for the enhancement of the load from 5 KW to 11 KW in the year 2012 and in this regard, the complainant deposited requisite fee of Rs.9550/- for extension of load vide receipt No. 215/4857 dated 31.5.2012. The officials of the Opposite Party for the purpose of enhancement of load from 5 KW to 11 KW removed the previous meter No. 34338 and in its place, new meter bearing No. 1112866 was installed in April, 2014. Vide bill dated 5.11.2014, the Opposite Party raised the demand of huge amount of Rs.1,14,852/- from the complainant without disclosing the details thereof. Alleged demand is very excessive, exorbitant, illegal, arbitrary and unjust and is not payable by the complainant because the complainant never used electricity to such an extent. On receipt of said bill, the complainant approached the concerned officials of Opposite Party and showed the previous bills to them and requested them to withdraw the impugned demand and to issue correct bill as per the consumption, but they paid no need to the genuine request of the complainant. However, the Opposite Party rather, threatened to disconnect the said connection if the demand raised by impugned bill is  not deposited on the fixed date. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Deputy Chief Engineer of PSPCL, Amritsar and made the requests, but he also refused to withdraw the illegal demand. However, the Deputy Chief Engineer allowed the complainant to deposit the impugned amount in 10 equal installments. It is worth mentioning here that all the time, the Opposite Party never gave any detail of the impugned amount to the complainant, but all the times, all the officers had been telling the complainant that the complainant is liable to pay the said amount. Although the complainant is not liable to pay this amount, yet under the compelling circumstances, the complainant agreed to pay the impugned amount in 10 installments under the threat of disconnection. The complainant also deposited the first installment of Rs.13,350/- against receipt.  Since the Opposite Party refused to furnish any details  of the impugned demand of Rs.1,14,852/-, as such, the complainant submitted an application under RTI Act dated 8.12.2014 to Public Information Officer, Gopal nagar Sub Division, PSPCL  Amritsar for seeking information/ documents such as certified copy of the ledger of consumer, copy of MCO, copy of report of ME lab etc. Said documents/ information was provided by the Opposite Party and on perusal of such documents, the complainant was shocked to note that the Opposite Party has charged illegal amount from the complainant. From the scrutiny of the said documents, it has been revealed that in the ME Lab report dated 18.9.2014 the meter which is shown to be checked against the account of complainant pertain to meter No. 916389. As per the said report, the said meter bearing No. 916389 was found dead stop. So much so even on MCO, the number of meter removed by the officials of the Opposite Party is mentioned as 916389. However, as per the attested copies of the ledger which are computerized and provide by the Opposite Party under RTI Act, the number of meter which was earlier installed in the premises of Mandir was 34338. Copies of ledger, MCO and report of ME lab is annexed herewith for the perusal of this Forum.  It is worth mentioning here that at the time of removal of the old meter, the signatures of the representative of the complainant were never obtained on any document. In fact the meter installed in the premises of the Mandir was actually bearing meter No. 34338 as mentioned in the ledger, but the  MCO was apparently prepared by the officials while sitting in their office. After removal of the meter from the premises of the complainant, some other meter was registered to the account of complainant and wrong number of meter was mentioned on the MCO. Under the circumstances, the Opposite Party without verification of the record and the documents claimed the impugned amount  from the complainant with regard to dead meter which in fact was never installed in the premises of the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that the said meter was never checked in the presence of any representative of the complainant. The complainant was never even informed about the checking of the meter. So far so the officials of the Opposite Party claimed the impugned amount by adding the same to the current bill, no separate notice or details for the said amount was ever given to the complainant. From the facts above, it is established that the alleged  checking  report is wrong, illegal, malafide, arbitrary and is not sustainable under the law. The complainant has sought the following relief vide instant complaint.

a)       Opposite Party may kindly be directed to set aside/ quashed the impugned bill dated 5.11.2014 for an amount of Rs.1,14,522/-.

b)      Opposite Party may kindly be restrained  from recovering the impugned amount and from disconnecting the electric connection of the complainant on account of non payment of the impugned amount.

c)       Opposite Party may kindly be directed to refund the amount already recovered by the Opposite Party with interest @ 12% per annum.

d)      Opposite Party may kindly be directed to pay the compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for causing him mental tension, agony and harassment.

e)       Opposite Party be also directed to pay costs of litigation to the extent of Rs.5,000/-. 

Hence, this  complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint; that the complaint is legally not maintainable. On merits, it is stated that the complaint is not filed by competent person. It is stated that electric connection bearing account No.FG522585 with sanctioned load of 5 KW under DS category is in the name of complainant mandir. As far as  payment of bills by the complainant from time to time is concerned, the same is matter of record. It is further stated that the concerned meter reader while taking the reading of the meter of the aforesaid connection noted that there was no display on the screen of the meter. So, he mentioned the meter status code ‘D’ and the bill on average basis was generated. The meter was  replaced vide MCO No. 179/105380 on 11.4.2014. The meter which was removed from the premises of the complainant was properly packed and sealed and was sent to ME Lab. Said meter was checked by the ME lab on 18.9.2014 and while  checking the meter in the ME Lab, Senior XEN Enforcement-I, Amritsar found that the final reading on the meter was 31137, whereas the consumer was billed upto reading 11368. So, it was directed by Senior XEN Enforcement-I, Amritsar vide site report Endst. No. 4531/E-I dated 18.9.2014 that the bill for the remaining unbilled units be issued. So, the bill for the remaining 15373 unbilled units was issued which were calculated as under:-

Reading in 9/2013                     11368

Final reading                             31137

Average consumption               4396

Charged in the bill 11/2013,

1/2014 and 3/2014 (1500+1241+1655)

Total                                        15373

So, after giving adjustment of the bills issued on average basis as per aforesaid calculations, supplementary bill for Rs.1,14,852/- was sent to the complainant vide notice memo No. 2672 dated 14.10.2014. Said bill is on account of actual consumption charges, but the complainant failed to comply with the said notice and as such, the aforesaid amount has been added in the bill dated 5.11.2014 under challenge. The demand raised by the Opposite Party is quite legal and valid. No cause of action arose in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party muchless on any date. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his  duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C25  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.D.P.Sahota, SDO Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP13 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 evidence on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant is registered trust under Societies Act and can file the present complaint in its name. As such, the present complaint is being filed by the trust through its Manager Sh.Santosh Sharma who is duly authorised to file the present complaint against Opposite Party for the redressal of its grievance  vide resolution copy of which accounts for Ex.C2 and copy of form-C is Ex.C3 whereas copy of Trust deed accounts for Ex.C4. The complainant trust is managing the affairs of a very famous Mandir of Lord Shri Balaji at the above noted address and various worshippers of Amritsar city particularly the residents of this locality daily visit the Mandir for worship.  In this mandir, many religious functions are being performed in the said mandir. The electricity supply to the said mandir is being provided by Opposite Party vide electric connection bearing account No. A22FG522585W under ‘Domestic Supply’ category. Said electric connection was installed in the name of Sudarshana Acharya. The complainant trust  had been  making payment of all the bills raised by the Opposite Party from time to time without committing any default. No amount is outstanding against the complainant except for the impugned bill. Initially, said electricity connection was having sanctioned load of 5 KW and the meter bearing No. 34388 was installed in the premises of the Mandir for recording consumption of electricity.  The complainant trust applied for the enhancement of the load from 5 KW to 11 KW in the year 2012 and in this regard, the complainant deposited requisite fee of Rs.9550/- for extension of load vide receipt No. 215/4857 dated 31.5.2012, copy of receipt is Ex.C5. The officials of the Opposite Party for the purpose of enhancement of load from 5 KW to 11 KW removed the previous meter No. 34338 and in its place, new meter bearing No. 1112866 was installed in April, 2014. Vide bill dated 5.11.2014 Ex.C7, the Opposite Party raised the demand of huge amount of Rs.1,14,852/- from the complainant without disclosing the details thereof, which demand is very excessive, exorbitant, illegal, arbitrary and unjust and is not payable by the complainant because the complainant never used electricity to such an extent. On receipt of said bill, the complainant approached the concerned officials of Opposite Party and showed the previous bills to them and requested to withdraw the impugned demand and to issue correct bill as per the consumption, but they paid no need to the genuine request of the complainant and rather, threatened to disconnect the said connection if the said amount is not deposited on the fixed date. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Deputy Chief Engineer of PSPCL, Amritsar and made the requests, but he also refused to withdraw the illegal demand, however he allowed the complainant to deposit the impugned amount in 10 equal installments. It is worth mentioning here that all this time, the Opposite Party never gave any detail of the impugned amount to the complainant, but all the times, all the officers have been telling the complainant that the complainant is liable to pay the said amount. Although the complainant is not liable to pay this amount, yet under the compelling circumstances, the complainant agreed to pay impugned amount in 10 installments under the threat of disconnection. The complainant, however,  deposited the first installment of Rs.13,350/- against receipt issued in its favour by the Opposite Party.  Since the Opposite Party refused to furnish any details  of the impugned demand of Rs.1,14,852/-, as such, the complainant submitted an application under RTI Act dated 8.12.2014 to Public Information Officer, Gopal nagar Sub Division, PSPCL  Amritsar for seeking information/ documents such as certified copy of the ledger of consumer, copy of MCO, copy of report of ME lab etc. Said documents/ information was provided by the Opposite Party and on perusal of such documents, the complainant was shocked to note that the Opposite Party has charged illegal amount to the complainant. From the scrutiny of the said documents, it is revealed that in the ME Lab report dated 18.9.2014 the meter which is shown to be checked against the account of complainant was having No. 916389. As per the said report, the said meter bearing No. 916389 was found dead stop. So far as even on MCO, the number of meter removed by the officials of the Opposite Party is mentioned as 916389. However, as per the attested copies of the ledger which are computerized and provide by the Opposite Party under RTI Act, the number of meter which was earlier installed in the premises of Mandir is 34338. Copies of ledger, MCO and report of ME lab are Ex.C12 to Ex.C25.  It is worth mentioning here that at the time of removal of the old meter, the signatures of the representative of the complainant were never obtained on any document. This shows  that in fact the meter installed in the premises of the Mandir was actually having meter No. 34338 as mentioned in the ledger. The MCO appears to have been prepared by the officials while sitting in their office after removal of the meter from the premises of the complainant, some other meter was registered to the account of complainant and wrong number of meter was mentioned on the MCO. Under the circumstances, the Opposite Party without verification of the record and the documents claimed the impugned amount  from the complainant with regard to dead meter which in fact was never installed in the premises of the complainant. It is worth mentioning here that the said meter was never checked in the presence of any representative of the complainant. The complainant was never even informed about the checking of the meter. So far so the officials of the Opposite Party claimed the impugned amount by adding the same to the current bill and no separate notice or details for the said amount was given to the complainant. The aforesaid acts on the part of Opposite Parties  amounts to negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service. The complainant has suffered not only mental pain and agony, but also harassment at the hands of the officials of the Opposite Parties  as such, the complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

7.       However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that it is not disputed that electric connection bearing account No.FG522585 with sanctioned load of 5 KW under DS category was  installed in the name of complainant mandir. As far as  payment of bills by the complainant from time to time is concerned, the same is matter of record. It is not denied that the meter  reader while noting down the reading of the meter of the aforesaid connection observed  that there was no display on the screen of the meter. So, he mentioned the meter status code ‘D’ and the bill on average basis was generated. The meter was  replaced vide MCO No. 179/105380 on 11.4.2014. The meter which was removed from the premises of the complainant was properly packed and sealed and was sent to ME Lab. Said meter was checked by the ME lab on 18.9.2014 and while  checking the meter in the ME Lab, Senior XEN Enforcement-I, Amritsar found that the final reading on the meter was 31137, whereas the consumer was billed upto reading 11368. So, it was directed by Senior XEN Enforcement-I, Amritsar vide site report Endst. No. 4531/E-I dated 18.9.2014 Ex.OP12 that the bill for the remaining unbilled units be issued. So, the bill for the remaining 15373 unbilled units was issued correctly. After giving adjustment of the bills issued on average basis as per aforesaid calculations, supplementary bill for Rs.1,14,852/- was sent to the complainant vide notice memo No. 2672 dated 14.10.2014 Ex.OP4. The bill in dispute has been issued on account of actual consumption charges, but the complainant failed to comply with the said notice and as such, the aforesaid amount has been added in the bill dated 5.11.2014 Ex.C7 under challenge. The demand raised by the Opposite Party is quite legal and valid. It is also not disputed that the Opposite Party has allowed the complainant to deposit the impugned amount in 10 equal installments and accoredingly the complainant agreed to pay impugned amount in 10 installments and deposited the first installment of Rs.13,350/- against receipt dated 23.1.2015, copy whereof accounts for Ex.C5. However, the complainant in his complaint has specifically disputed the meter number checked in the ME lab by the officials of the Opposite Parties.  But however, to clarify this factum, the Opposite Party has furnished duly sworn affidavits of Er.D.P.Sahota, SDO and  Er.Ashwani Kumar, SDO (Commercial)  Sub Division, Gopal Nagar, PSPCL, Amritsar copies whereof is Ex.OP7 and Ex.OP13 respectively, (alongwith supporting documents Ex.OP8 to Ex.OP12) in which they have specifically deposed that earlier meter No. 34338 was installed in the premises of the complainant and thereafter on enhancement of the load from 5 KW to 11 KW the new meter for three phase was installed after removing the old meter No. 34338. New meter No. 916389 was installed on 28.6.2012 as per Master File of Connection  &  Ext.Load of (A22) Gopal Nagar Amritsar. But due to inadvertence and clerical mistake the said meter number could not be changed in the record of the Opposite Party. In the year of 2014 again the meter No. 916389 was replaced with new one meter No. 1112866 vide MCO No. 179/105380 dated 11.4.2014. At present the meter no. 1112866 was installed and it was old meter No. 916389 which was actually removed from the premises of the complainant. After that, the complainant was given opportunity to rebut this piece of evidence, but instead of  rebutting that, the complainant through his counsel made statement in this Forum on 26.5.2015 that he does not want to lead any evidence in rebuttal on behalf of the complainant. So much so, even no request for cross examination of the witnesses examined as additional evidence was resorted to for the reason best know  to the complainant. It means and imply that the explanation regarding meter number given by the Opposite Party has been admitted to be correct by the complainant.  In view of this, it  is fully proved that the meter number of the complainant could not be changed in the record of the Opposite Party due to inadvertence and due to clerical mistake. But however, it is the same meter belonging to the complainant which was checked by ME Lab. Consequently, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the complaint deserves dismissal and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. 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.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:28.07.2016.                                                     (S.S.Panesar)                                                                                            President

                                           (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member

hrg