BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.437 of 14

Date of Institution: 11-08-2014

Date of Decision: 14-05-2015 

Smt.Pooja Duggal wife of Sh.Vijay Duggal, resident of House No. 31, Gali No.13, New Pawan Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Principal Officer, The Mall, Patiala, service through Asstt.Executive Engineer (Commercial), East Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

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

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. S.K.Sharma, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Ms.Neena Kapoor, 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 Ms.Pooja Duggal  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she obtained an electric connection bearing account No.A21PE350698H from Opposite Party. Complainant alleges that since the installation of the above said electric connection, the complainant has been paying the regular consumption charges and nothing is outstanding against her. However, the complainant was shocked and surprised to receive the electricity bill dated 15.7.2014 in which the Opposite Party claimed a sum of Rs.29,650/- (before due date) and Rs.32,235/- (after due date) in which the Opposite Party had wrongly and illegally added an amount of Rs.25,852/- on the account of alleged sundry charges without disclosing the details thereof. On receipt of the said bill, the complainant approached the office of Opposite Party for correction of the bill, but the Opposite Party refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to quash the amount of Rs.25,852/-.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the senior officials of the Opposite Party checked the electricity connection of the complainant and found that meter was dead and was removed. The meter was removed vide MCO No.22/90457 and thereafter the meter was checked in ME Lab. At the time of checking, it was found that the last reading was 12802 whereas the consumer was only charged upto 8810 units. Therefore, rests of the units were found to be charged from the consumer. Accordingly, the account of the complainant was overhauled and the demand is not any penalty, but the actual consumption of electricity which has not been charged earlier from the complainant.  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.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Vijay Kumar, SDO East Division Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7.
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 the parties, it is clear that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide  account No.A21PE350698H. As per the version of the complainant, she has been making the payment of electricity bills issued by Opposite Party regularly without any default. However, the  complainant  received electricity bill dated 15.7.2014 from the Opposite Party in which the Opposite Party claimed a sum of Rs.29,650/- in which the Opposite Party had added an amount of Rs.25,852/- under the head  ‘sundry charges’ without disclosing the details thereof. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested them to rectify the bill, but the officials of the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  Ld.counsel for 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 senior officials of the Opposite Party checked the electricity connection of the complainant and found that meter was dead. Resultantly, the meter  was removed vide  MCO dated 7.4.2014 Ex.OP3. Thereafter, the meter was  checked in ME Lab and it was found that  the last reading was 12802 whereas the complainant was only charged upto 8810 units. Therefore, balance/ difference of the units i.e. 3992 were found to be charged from the consumer and it was directed that the account of the consumer be overhauled. Resultantly, in view of the observation and investigation, in ME Lab, the account of the complainant was overhauled by charging units which were earlier not charged and an amount of Rs.25852/- was found to be recoverable from the complainant. Resultantly, notice vide memo No. 579 dated 30.6.2014 (Ex.OP2) was issued to the complainant to deposit this amount within 5 days from the date of receipt of this notice or to file objections, if any with the Opposite Party. But the complainant neither deposited this amount with the Opposite Party nor filed any objection. Resultantly, this amount was charged from the complainant in the bill Ex.C2 on the basis of actual consumption of the electricity by the complainant.   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 electricity connection of the complainant was checked by senior officials of the Opposite Party and the meter was found dead. The meter was  removed vide  MCO dated 7.4.2014 Ex.OP3 effected on 19.4.2014. The meter was  checked in ME Lab. At the time of checking of the removed meter in ME Lab, it was found that last reading of the meter was 12802 as per document Ex.OP4. As per the consumption data of the complainant Ex.OP6, the  complainant was charged upto 8810 units reading. So, the account of the complainant was overhauled and the complainant was charged for balance units i.e. 3992 units (12802-8810=3992) and a sum of Rs.25852/- was found payable by the complainant to the Opposite Party. Resultantly, the complainant was given  notice vide memo No. 579 dated 30.6.2014 (Ex.OP2) vide which the complainant was given all details and he was asked to deposit this amount within  5 days from the date of receipt of this notice or to file objections, if any, with the Opposite Party. But the complainant neither deposited this amount with the Opposite Party nor filed any objection. So, the Opposite Party  charged this amount in the current consumption bill of the complainant dated 15.7.2014 Ex.C2. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that Opposite Party has mentioned the last reading of the meter of the complainant when it was removed as 23913 as is evident from MCO Ex.OP3 and it was also mentioned in the register of ME Lab Ex.OP4, but later on it was changed from 23913 to 12802 which makes the case of the Opposite Party highly doubtful. Whereas ld.counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the figure 23913 has been inadvertently written on this MCO and resultantly in the register of the ME Lab Ex.OP4 when the meter was received in ME Lab. However, when the meter was opened and actual reading was taken then it was found that the actual reading of the meter was 12802 and this mistake was corrected and no prejudice has been caused to the complainant in this regard. We have gone through the report i.e. MCO Ex.OP3 and copy of register of Challan No.36 dated 27.5.2014 (Ex.OP4) sent to ME Lab by the Opposite Party and do agree with the contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party because inadvertently, the reading of the meter was written as 23913, but when the meter was actually opened and checked in ME Lab, the actual reading was found as 12802 and it was corrected accordingly and no prejudice has been caused in this regard to the complainant.
9. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
10. Resultantly the 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 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: 14-05-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                         Member