BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No  575 of 2014

Date of Institution: 07.11.2014

Date of Decision: 20.11.2015

Mangat Ram S/o Sh. Ram Rattan R/o Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Near 22 No.Railway Phatak, Putlighar, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman/M.D., The Mall, Patiala service through the SDO West Sub Division, PSPCL,Amritsar

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  Sh.Ajay Shanker,Advocate

               For the Opposite Party      : Sh. Anil Sharma,Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Mangat Ram under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that  he is holder of domestic connection bearing account No. A25EW221051N which was installed at his premises. According to the complainant he has been making payment of the electricity bills regularly. On 27.12.2012 the meter of the complainant got burnt . Complainant immediately reported the matter to the opposite party  and on their direction complainant deposited Rs. 520/- for change of meter vide receipt No. 135 dated 27.12.2012 and thereafter meter was changed. The bills were being issued to the complainant on regular basis which the complainant had been paying regularly. Complainant was surprised to receive memo No. 1401 dated 27.5.2014 claiming Rs. 67402/- directing the complainant to deposit this amount within 7 days . Complainant has alleged that this demand has been raised vide half margin but the copy of half margin is not supplied to him. On receipt of memo, complainant approached the opposite party and requested them to withdraw the same, but to no avail. After some days, the complainant received bill in the month of June 2014 in which the aforesaid amount of Rs. 67402/- was added. He again approached the opposite party and requested them to withdraw the disputed amount or to correct the bill, but they did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant.  Again this demand of Rs. 67402/- was added in the bill of the month of  August 2014. Again complainant visited the opposite party and requested them to withdraw the disputed amount but they flatly refused to do so. However, due to non payment of such a huge amount , opposite party disconnected his domestic supply . The complainant again approached the opposite party and requested them to restore the supply and then he was directed to deposit Rs. 40000/- which the complainant deposited under pressure on 15.9.2014 and accordingly his electric supply was restored. Some officials came to the complainant again and directed him to deposit the balance amount  and when complainant showed his inability to deposit the same , the opposite party  again disconnected his electricity supply without any prior notice. The complainant visited the opposite party and requested them to restore  the electricity supply but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to set-aside the impugned demand of Rs. 67402/-. Opposite party be further directed to issue correct bills and to receive the actual charges after adjusting the payment of Rs. 40000/- and to restore the supply immediately. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that during the checking audit party of the opposite party noted that in the month of 12/2012 average bill of 284 units , in 2/2013 average bill of 295 units, in 5/2013 average bill of 468 units and in 6/2013 average bill of 214 units due to D code were issued to the complainant . After that MCO No. 147/49177 dated 25.5.2013 was issued to change the electricity meter of the complainant which was effected on 28.5.2013. When the electricity meter was changed at that time the final reading of the meter was 27313 digits. The audit party noted that in the month of 12/2012 the electricity meter was declared D code and at that time the reading was 16423 digits. The audit party noted that the total units which has been consumed by the complainant from the month of 12/2012  to the change of meter the reading was (27313-16423=10890 units). So the audit party divided these units in four bill cycles i.e. 108940/4 = 2722 units. So the total amount which was to be paid by the complainant was Rs. 67402/-. In this regard a detailed notice vide memo No. 1401 dated 27.5.2014 was issued to the complainant. But the complainant did not make the payment and the said amount was added in the bill dated 6/2014. It was submitted that complainant did not make the payment of electricity consumption charges and  his electricity connection was disconnected. After that complainant deposited Rs. 4000/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 35541/- were transferred in another account of the complainant vide account No. EW 22/1271 which was running in the same premises  and in this regard a detailed notice vide memo No. 3236 dated 20.10.2014 was issued to the complainant . It was submitted that when this amount was transferred in account No. EW 22/1271, the complainant moved an application to  deposit Rs. 15000/- which was allowed and the complainant deposited Rs. 15000/- and he assured that the remaining amount would also be paid shortly. It was submitted that  the demand raised by the opposite party is as per rules and regulations of the opposite party and there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of the complainant regarding restoration Ex.C-2, copy of payment receipt No. 189 dated 15.9.2014 Ex.C-3, letter dated 27.5.2014 Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 22.8.2014 Ex.C-5, payment receipt No. 135 Ex.C-6, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-7, copy of bill Ex.C-8, copies of bills and receipts ex.C-9 to C-19.
4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar, SDO West Ex.OP1, copy of notice Ex.OP2, copy of letter Ex.OP3, copy of notice Ex.OP4, copy of PDCO Ex.Op5, copy of consumption data Ex.OP6.
5. 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.
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 under the opposite party vide account No. A25EW221051N installed in his house. The complainant alleges that he has been making payment of all the electricity bills issued by the opposite party regularly without any default. On or about 17.12.2012 the meter of the complainant got burnt. The matter was reported to the opposite party. The complainant also deposited fee amounting to Rs. 520/- regarding change of meter vide receipt dated 27.12.2012 Ex.C-6 and the opposite party changed the meter and took away the burnt meter and got the signatures of the complainant. Thereafter the opposite party issued memo No. 1401 dated 27.5.2014 Ex.C-4 to the complainant demanding Rs. 67402/- with the direction that this amount be deposited with the opposite party within 7 days ; failing which this amount will be transferred in the aforesaid account of the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party to explain regarding the payment of this amount, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. After some days complainant received bill in June 2014 in which the aforesaid amount of Rs. 67402/- was added by the opposite party. The complainant again approached the opposite party to correct the said bill and not to add the disputed amount in the said bill, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and the complainant had to deposit Rs. 40000/- vide receipt dated 15.9.2014 Ex.C-3 to avoid disconnection of the electric connection. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the meter of the complainant became defective , as such the bills in the month of 12/2012, 2/2013, 5/2013 and 6/2013 were issued on average basis with “D” code . Then MCO dated 25.5.2013 was issued to change the electricity meter of the complainant which was effected on 28.5.2013 and the old meter was removed  with the final reading 27313 digits. When the meter was declared defective with “D” code in 12/2012 the reading of the meter was 16423. The audit party overhauled the account of the complainant and after adjusting the total amount paid by the complainant against the bills on average basis, a sum of Rs. 67402/- was found payable by the complainant for the difference of units. So the detailed notice vide memo No. 1401 dated 27.5.2014 Ex.OP4 was issued to the complainant requesting the complainant to make the payment of this amount to the opposite party within stipulated period or to file objections, if any. But the complainant did not deposit this amount nor filed any objections within the stipulated period, as such this amount was added in the regular electricity bill dated 6/2014 of the complainant. The complainant did not make payment of the aforesaid amount , so the electric connection of the complainant  was disconnected permanently. After that complainant paid Rs. 40000/- to the opposite party and the balance amount of Rs. 35541/- were transferred  in another account of the complainant bearing No. EW22/1272 running in the same premises and in this regard notice vide memo No. 3236 dated 20.10.2014 Ex.OP2 was issued to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant moved application to the opposite party and deposited Rs. 15000/- vide receipt dated 27.10.2014 Ex.C-7. But he did not pay the balance amount. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that in these circumstances, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that complainant has two electric connections bearing account No. EW 22/1051 and EW 22/1271 in his own name in the same premises situated at Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Near 22 No.Railway Phatak, Putlighar, Amritsar. Meter of the account No. EW 22/1051 became defective and was  given “D” code in 12/2012, as such bills were sent to the complainant against that account on average basis for the period from 12/2012 to 6/2013. The said meter was changed vide MCO No.147/49177 dated 25.5.2013 effected on 28.5.2013 and at the time of removal of the old meter, its reading was 27313 digits, whereas complainant was charged upto 16423 digits. Resultantly the account of the complainant was overhauled and difference of units came out to  10890 units (27313-16423= 10890) after giving adjustment of the  bills issued to the complainant on average basis for the aforesaid period an amount of Rs. 67402/- was found due payable by the complainant. The complainant was served with notice bearing memo No. 1401 dated 27.5.2014 Ex.OP4 requesting the complainant to deposit this amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice or to file objections, if any. But the complainant neither deposited the amount nor filed any objections, as such this amount was claimed by the opposite party in the electricity bill of the complainant dated 6/2014. Even then the complainant did not make the payment of the said bill. As such this connection was disconnected vide PDCO No. 75287 dated 1.9.2014. Thereafter, the complainant made payment of Rs. 40,000/- only vide receipt dated 15.9.2014 but did not pay the balance amount Rs. 35441/-. Resultantly this amount was transferred to the other account of the complainant bearing No. EW 22/1071. Thereafter the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 15000/- only on 27.10.2014 vide receipt Ex.C-7 and the balance amount is still outstanding against the complainant. In this regard notice was also issued to the complainant vide memo No. 3236 dated 20.10.2014 Ex.OP2. But inspite of that the complainant did not deposit the aforesaid balance amount with the opposite party. All this shows that opposite party has proceeded against the complainant in accordance with rules and regulations of the opposite party. The complainant is a defaulter and he could not prove any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
9. Resultantly we hold that present 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 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: 20.11.2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                              President

/R/                             (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)         (Anoop Sharma)

            Member                            Member