DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/236

Date of Institution : 04.04.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 02.08.2022

M/s Chahal Flour Mills through its Prop. Rajneesh Kumar s/o Madan Lal at Chabal Road, Khazana Gate, Chabal, Tehsil and District Amritsar.  

  …Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman/MD, The Mall, Patiala.  

2. SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Hakiman Gate, Sub Division, Amritsar.

…Opposite Parties.

Complaint U/S 11 and 12 of The Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended

Present: Sh. Sunil Luthra Adv counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Munish Menon Adv counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is running the flour mills for earning his livelihood. He was obtained the electricity connection in the name of this firm from the opposite party bearing Account No. 3002879540 of 15.700 KW and by doing this business he is maintaining himself and his family members being self employment. It is further alleged that the opposite party issued bill dated 27.3.2017 fro Rs. 1,58,770/- before due date and Rs. 1,60,983/- after due date which is very excessive. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 and showed this bill and showed his apprehension that the meter is not properly functioning and is jumping. On his request the opposite party visited the spot, checked the meter and found that it was jumping. He was directed to deposit the meter challenge fee and then it will be got checked from ME Lab and till the report of ME Lab they cannot withdraw the bill. The complainant deposited the part amount of bill under the compelling circumstances. The complainant deposited the meter challenge fee of Rs. 450/- with the opposite party vide receipt dated 29.3.2017 and on the same date the meter was checked by the staff of the opposite party and made checking report and reported that the meter is defective and it is jumping and recommended to change the old meter and to replace with the new meter. The old meter was removed from the spot and it was taken away by the officials of the opposite party in loose/unpacked and unsealed condition and it was not got checked in the ME Lab in his presence. However, new meter was installed in placed of the old meter. The officials of the opposite party told the complainant that on account of defect in meter the average charges will be charged from him. Thereafter, the opposite party sent a bill dated 15.3.2018 for Rs. 2,32,820/- to the complainant in which amount of Rs. 54,420/- has been as arrears of previous financial year and Rs. 1,24,988/- as arrears of the current financial year total arrears of Rs. 1,82,182/- whereas nothing is due against the complainant and he has been paying the bills regularly. The bill is very excessive and liable to be set aside. The complainant is ready to pay average consumption charges during the period of defect in the meter. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 and requested him to withdraw this amount and to issue correct bill on average basis but they refused to do so which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to withdraw this disputed bill in the alternative it may be set aside and to issue fresh bill according to actual consumption and average bills during defect in the meter. 

2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for mental pain and harassment.

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of legal expenses.

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written version taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint as opposite party is taking action as per law, rules and regulations of the department and amount claimed from the complainant pertains to actual consumption of electricity by him. The meter bearing No. 1185175 installed in the premises of the complainant got burnt and upon receiving the information in respect of the same meter change order dated 5.1.2016 was issued for the replacement which was replaced on 19.1.2016. The said meter is removed at meter reading 28329 as mentioned on the said MCO. On 19.1.2016 new meter bearing No. 334559 was installed in the premises of the complainant at meter reading 002. The said MCO dated 5.1.2016 was inadvertently escaped from getting entered in the records of the opposite party and since the whole system is not computerized the system started generating the bills for the consumption of electricity by the complainant on average basis taking the old burnt meter installed in the premises of the complainant although the same was changed on 19.1.2016. The said mistake was corrected at the time of generation of bill dated 27.3.2017 for the period of 480 days from 15.11.2015 when the last meter reading of the meter bearing 1185175 was taken which was 25407 uptill removal of said meter at the meter reading 28329 as on 19.1.2016 and meter reading of the meter bearing No. 334559 from 19.1.2016 which was 002 uptill 10.3.2017 when the meter reading of the meter was 27411. The bill dated 10.3.2017 was raised by the department for Rs. 1,58,765/- for the consumption of 30331 units of electricity. The complainant is habitual defaulter and never bother to make the payment of bills within stipulated time. The said bill dated 27.3.2017 was raised by the department after giving due adjustment of the amount already paid by the complainant during the said period. The complainant moved an application with the opposite party challenging the meter installed in its premises and also deposited the meter challenge fee of Rs. 450/- for the meter bearing No. 334559. The premises of the complainant was inspected by the officials of the opposite party on 29.3.2017 and during the course of inspection it was detected that the KWH/KVAH indicators on the meter were blinking whereas all the appliances were shut down. The electrical installations inside the premises were in very bad condition and the wires were found naked at many places. The outgoing wires of the premises of the complainant were also intermingled with the wires of residential connection. Due to bad lighting arrangements and conditions the wiring in the premises could not be checked properly. The blinking KWH and KVAH indicators stopped when the outgoing wire of the yellow phase was taken out of terminal block. The inspection was carried out in the presence of the complainant himself. Thereafter, the meter in question was removed from the premises and same was checked in ME Lab on 1.8.2017. During the course of checking the said meter was found to be defective and running fast. The functioning of the meter was checked with the help of ERS meter and it was found that against the consumption of one unit of electricity the said meter was recording 1.7 units of consumption of electricity. From 27.3.2017 the complainant avoided the payment of  bills and cheques issued by him were also dishonored on account of insufficient funds. After the report of ME Lab the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period of 6 months preceding to the date of checking of the ME Lab and excess billing as observed in ME Lab on account of defective meter was adjusted in the account of the complainant which came out to be Rs. 51,282/-. The said amount was adjusted in the bill issued to the complainant in March 2018. After adjustment the complainant up till 10.4.2018 is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,39,480/- to the opposite party. The said amount pertains to actual consumption of electricity by the complainant. 

5. On merits, the opposite parties submitted that the complainant is using the electric connection for commercial purpose. Rest of the submissions on merits already mentioned in the preliminary objections so there is no need to repeat the same. However, lastly the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

6. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copies of bills Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, copy of account statement Ex.C-3, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-4, affidavit of Davinder Singh Ex.CW-2/A and closed the evidence.

7. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhpreet Singh SDO Commercial Ex.OP-1, copy of MCO Ex.OP-2, copy of bill dated 27.3.2017 Ex.OP-3, copy of report dated 29.3.2017 Ex.OP-4, copy of ME Lab report dated 1.8.2017 Ex.OP-5, copy of account statement of complainant Ex.OP-6, copy of cheque dated 8.11.2016 Ex.OP-7, copy of memo issued by HDFC Bank Ex.OP-8, copy of cheque dated 13.11.2016 Ex.OP-9, copy of memo issued by HDFC Bank Ex.OP-10, copy of cheque dated 21.11.2016 Ex.OP-11, copy of memo dated 21.12.2016 Ex.OP-12, copy of memo dated 21.12.2016 Ex.OP-13, copy of cheque dated 18.11.2016 Ex.OP-14, copy of MCO dated 29.3.2017 Ex.OP-15 and closed the evidence.  

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file carefully. Written arguments also filed by the complainant. 

9. The grievance of the complainant is that he is running flour mill for earning his livelihood. He has obtained an electric connection in the name of his firm bearing Account No. 3002879540 of 15.700 KW. He has been making the payments of electricity bills regularly without committing any default and nothing is due from him except the disputed amount which has been challenged in this case. It is averred in the complaint that the opposite party issued bill dated 27.3.2017 for Rs. 1,58,770/- before due date and Rs. 1,60,983/- after due date which is very excessive and not payable by him. He approached the opposite party and deposited the meter challenge fee of Rs. 450/- vide receipt No. 227 dated 29.3.2017 Ex.C-4 and on the same date the meter was checked by the staff of the opposite party and it was found defective and it is jumping. They recommended to change the old meter and replace with the new meter. Accordingly, the old meter was removed from the spot and it was taken away by the officials of the opposite party. The new meter was installed in place of the old meter. Again the complainant received a bill dated 15.3.2018 for Rs. 2,32,820/- to the complainant before due date and Rs. 2,32,883/- after due date in which the amount of Rs. 54,420/- was shown as arrears of previous financial years and Rs. 1,24,988/- as arrears of the current financial year total arrears of Rs. 1,82,182/-. 

10. In the written statement by the opposite party and an affidavit submitted by Er. Sukhpreet Singh SDO Commercial, Hakima Gate, PSPCL, Amritsar it is admitted that the meter bearing No. 1185175 installed in the premises of the complainant got burnt and upon receiving the information in respect of the same meter change order dated 5.1.2016 was issued for the replacement of the said meter and it was replaced on 19.1.2016. The said meter was removed at meter reading 28329 and this is mentioned on MCO. On 19.1.2016 new meter bearing No. 334559 was installed in the premises of the complainant at meter reading 002. It is admitted in the affidavit that the said MCO dated 5.1.2016 escaped from getting entered in the records of the opposite party and since the whole system is now computerized the system started generating the bills for the consumption of electricity by the complainant on average basis taking the old burnt meter as installed meter in the premises of the complainant although the same was changed on 19.1.2016. The said mistake was corrected at the time of generation of bill dated 27.3.2017. The said bill dated 27.3.2017 was generated for the period of 480 days from 15.11.2015. It is also admitted that the complainant moved an application with the opposite party challenging the meter installed in the premises and deposited an amount of Rs. 450/- as meter challenge fee for the meter bearing No. 334559. Consequently, the premises of the complainant was inspected by the officials of the opposite party on 29.3.2017. The functioning of the meter was checked with the help of ERS meter and it was found that against the consumption of one unit of electricity the said meter was recording 1.7 units of consumption of electricity. The said meter was removed and was sent to ME Lab and it was found defective. After the report of ME Lab received by the concerned department the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period of 6 months preceding to the date of checking of the meter in  ME Lab and excess billing as observed in ME Lab on account of defect in the meter was adjusted in the account of the complainant which came out to be Rs. 51,282/-. The said amount was adjusted in the bill issued to the complainant in March 2018. 

11. The first meter installed in the premises of the complainant got burnt and was changed on 19.1.2016. After change of meter the complainant received first bill on 27.3.2017 for a period of 480 days and an amount of Rs. 1,58,765/-. The complainant moved an application with the opposite party challenging the second meter and deposited meter challenge fee of Rs. 450/- Ex.C-4. The functioning of the meter was checked by the opposite party with the help of ERS meter on site and it was found that against the consumption of one unit of electricity the said meter was recording 1.7 units of consumption of electricity. The meter was removed and checked in the ME Lab Ex.OP-5 and the report of the ME Lab is that the working of the meter was defective. The meter was checked on 29.3.2017 at site and it was checked in the lab on 1.8.2017 almost four months after it was removed from the premises of the complainant. It is admitted in the affidavit given by the SDO that the account of the complainant was overhauled for the period of 6 months preceding the date of checking of the meter in the ME Lab whereas the account of the complainant needs to be overhauled from the date of installation of second meter i.e. 19.1.2016 and not for the period of 6 months preceding the date of checking of meter in the ME Lab i.e. 1.8.2017. It is to be rectified after reducing the consumption 0.7 per unit. 

12. From the above discussion, there is clear negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant from the date of the installation of second meter i.e. 19.1.2016 by reducing the consumption 0.7 per unit and further directed the opposite parties to waive the surcharge mentioned in the bills raised by the opposite parties. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with the above mentioned order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        2nd Day of August 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member