BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.727-13

Date of Institution:24-10-2013

Date of Decision:18-03-2015

Neeraj Mehta son of R.D.Mehta, resident of 1625/15, Goal Masjid, Sharif Pura, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala through its Sr.Executive Engineer/ City Center Sub Division, Hati Gate, Amritsar.     

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: In Person.

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

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Neeraj Mehta under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that an electric connection bearing Account No.C15HP020333K has been installed by the Opposite Party in the premises of the complainant and the complainant has been making the payment of electricity consumption regularly to the Opposite Party. Complainant alleges that in the month of May, 2013 the meter of the complainant was changed and  thereafter, the bills were issued by the Opposite Party on the basis of average. However, the status of the meter was correct “C” code.  The Opposite Party has issued a bill dated 11.9.2013 for Rs. 29670/- which is excessive one. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested to correct the impugned bill, but the Opposite Party did not listen to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.29670/- raised vide bill dated 11.9.2013. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant is chronic defaulter in payment of electricity bills. He has not paid the bills dated 11.7.2012 for Rs. 7849/- and further failed to pay the bill dated 12.9.2012 for Rs.15862/- which includes the amount of previous bill and surcharge. Thereafter, bill dated 23.11.2012 for Rs.19545/- which includes the amount of previous bills and surcharge was issued to the complainant which was paid by the complainant. These bills were issued with status of the meter “O” which means the meter was OK. Thereafter, the complainant was issued bill dated 16.1.2013 with ‘D’ code for Rs.3114/- which was not paid by him. However, the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.C13M/13/04742 dated 18.4.2013 effective from 5.6.2013. Thereafter, the complainant has again not paid the bills dated 16.1.2013, 16.3.2013, 16.5.2013 with ‘D’ code, 21.7.2013 with ‘C’ code and 11.8.2013 with ‘O’ code. It is submitted that when the meter of the complainant was changed vide aforesaid MCO, the new meter was having reading upto 2 units and for the period from 5.6.2013 to 21.7.2013, the new meter recorded reading of 541 units and as the bi-monthly bills are issued in respect of domestic connections, therefore, the average for the period from 16.5.2013 to 4.6.2013 was taken. The total amount of these bills worked out to the tune of Rs. 30344/- for 1241 units and out of these bills of Rs. 30344/-, the complainant paid Rs.15170/- leaving balance of Rs. 15174/- which is still outstanding against the complainant which he has failed to pay. The aforesaid bills were issued to the complainant on average basis after taking into account the bills issued to the complainant during the preceding year of the same months as per rules.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Surinder Kumar, SDO Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Party  and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant is consumer of electricity vide  Account No.C15HP020333K.  Complainant alleges that in the month of May, 2013 the meter of the complainant was changed and  the electricity bills were issued  to the complainant  by the Opposite Party on the basis of average. The Opposite Party has issued a bill dated 11.9.2013 for Rs. 29670/- which is excessive one. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested to correct the impugned bill, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant has electric connection bearing  Account No.C15HP020333K under DS category with sanctioned load of 3 KW. The complainant is regular defaulter. He has not paid the bills regularly and he has not paid the bill dated 11.7.2012 for Rs. 7849/- and further failed to pay the bill dated 12.9.2012 for Rs.15862/- which includes the amount of previous bill and surcharge. Thereafter, bill dated 23.11.2012 for Rs.19545/- which includes the amount of previous bills and surcharge was issued to the complainant. These bills were issued with status of the meter “O” which means the meter was OK. Thereafter, the complainant was issued bill dated 16.1.2013 with ‘D’ code for Rs.3114/- which was not paid by the complainant.  However, the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO dated 18.4.2013 effective from 5.6.2013. Thereafter, the complainant has again not paid the bills dated 16.1.2013, 16.3.2013, 16.5.2013 with ‘D’ code, 21.7.2013 with ‘C’ code and 11.9.2013 with ‘O’ code. When the meter of the complainant was changed vide aforesaid MCO, the new meter was having reading upto 2 units and for the period from 5.6.2013 to 21.7.2013, the new meter recorded reading of 541 units and as the bi-monthly bills are issued, therefore, the average for the period from 16.5.2013 to 4.6.2013 was taken. The total amount of these bills worked out to the tune of Rs. 30344/- for 1241 units. Out of these bills of Rs. 30344/-, the complainant paid Rs.15170/- (50% only)  leaving balance of Rs. 15174/- which is still outstanding against the complainant which he has failed to pay. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party further submitted that the aforesaid bills were issued to the complainant on average basis i.e. on the basis of actual consumption made by the complainant during the corresponding period of the preceding year  as per rules. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the meter of the complainant became defective and the bills were issued to the complainant with ‘D’ code on average basis i.e. on the basis of consumption of electricity for the corresponding period of the last year for the period from 16.1.2013 to 17.7.2013 as per Consumption Data o the complainant Ex.OP3. As per the record of the Opposite Party, the complainant did not pay the bill dated 16.1.2013 for Rs.3114/-  bill dated 16.3.2013, 16.5.2013 with ‘D’ code and bill dated  21.7.2013 with ‘C’ code and 11.9.2013 with ‘O’ code. All these  bills were issued to the complainant which included the arrears of previous bills alongwith surcharge.  The total amount of these bills worked out to the tune of Rs. 30344/- as shown in the bill Ex.C5 dated 11.9.2013. Out of these bills of Rs. 30344/-, the complainant has deposited half of the amount i.e.  Rs.15170/- as per the order dated 7.1.2013 of this Forum leaving balance of Rs. 15174/- which is still unpaid. The complainant alleges that the bills issued on the average basis were excessive and exorbitant. Here we do not agree with this contention of the complainant because these bills on average basis were issued on the basis of actual consumption of electricity made by the complainant during the corresponding period of previous/ last year and the complainant never challenged those bills. So, it can not be said that these bills based on average basis i.e. on the basis of actual consumption made by the complainant during the corresponding period of last year as per consumption data of the complainant Ex.OP3, are illegal which are as per the rules and regulations of the Opposite Party. So, this plea of the complainant that these  bills dated 16.3.2013 Ex.C2, bill dated 16.5.2013 Ex.C3, bill dated 21.7.2013 Ex.C4 and bill dated 11.9.2013 Ex.C5 are excessive/ exorbitant, is not maintainable. Rather, these bills were issued by the Opposite Party as per actual consumption made by the complainant during the last year as well as actual consumption made by the complainant during the period 17.7.2013 to 11.9.2013.
9. However, the Opposite Party has charged Rs. 2650/- in the bill dated 11.9.2013 Ex.C5 under head ‘sundry charges’, without explaining any detail to the complainant and without giving prior notice to the complainant as required under regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party. Opposite Party can not  charge any amount except the current consumption charges or the arrears of the previous bill in the regular consumption bill. In this case, the Opposite Party has not given any prior notice giving the detail of this amount being charged from the complainant asking the complainant to deposit the same within the stipulated period or to file objection, if any, failing which the said amount shall be charged in the current consumption bill of the complainant. But in this case, no prior notice was given to the complainant by Opposite Party regarding charging of this amount of Rs. 2650/- from the complainant vide bill dated 11.9.2013 Ex.C5.
10. Resultantly, this amount of Rs. 2650/- raised by the Opposite Party in the current consumption bill of the complainant dated 11.9.2013 Ex.C5 is not sustainable and as such, the same is hereby set aside. However, the Opposite Party is at liberty to raise this demand afresh from the complainant after following proper procedure as laid down under regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party. So, except  this,  order of setting aside the demand of Rs. 2650/- raised by the Opposite Party from the complainant in bill Ex.C5, remaining complaint is held to be devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 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 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.

Dated: 18-03-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                               Member