BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 543 of 2014

Date of Institution: 15-10-2014

Date of Decision: 23-07-2015 

Mr.Rakesh Prashar son of late Sh.Narinjan Dass, resident of H.No.2382/ XVI-20, Gali No.4, Nawankot, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

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

Opposite Party

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

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Inderjit Lakhra, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. Anil Sharma, 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.Rakesh Prashar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that electric connection of DS tariff bearing account No.IB27/122-X is installed in the residential premises of the complainant in the name of his fat her Narinjan Dass. Said Narinjan Dass has since died. After the death of his father, the complainant has been using the said electricity connection and is paying the electricity consumption charges regularly to the Opposite Party without committing any default.  Complainant alleges that in the month of September/ October, 2013, it came to the notice of the complainant that the meter installed in his premises was running very fast as it had been showing 70/80 units per day and accordingly, he approached the Opposite Party and lodged his complaint with the Opposite Party vide application dated 25.10.2013 and also deposit meter challenge fee. On 26.10.2013 official of the Opposite Party visited the premises of the complainant, checked the defective meter and made report to the effect that it was running very fast. Accordingly, meter was changed and it was taken to ME Lab. After the installation of new meter in place of defective meter, the bills were being issued to the complainant at a much higher basis and he had been visiting the Opposite Party to get the same corrected. Now the Opposite Party has issued a letter/ memo to the complainant giving the reference of ME report to the effect that there was internal defect in the meter removed from the premises and inspite of this, they have claimed the amount of Rs.24,821/- from the complainant asking him to deposit the same within 7 days failing which the connection of the complainant will be disconnected without any further notice.              Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to withdraw the impugned memo.   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 moved an application to the Opposite Party regarding his electricity meter. After that the premises of the complainant was got checked by the Opposite Party and the electricity meter of the complainant was removed from the premises of the complainant vide MCO No.14/404 dated 30.10.2013 which was effected on 4.12.2013. After that the meter of the complainant was brought in ME Lab for checking of the same and on 10.3.2014 the electricity meter of the complainant was got checked in ME Lab in the presence of the complainant. The complainant also signed the checking report. During the checking it was found that when the meter was checked with ERS meter, it was found that the consumption of ERS was 1 and the consumption of complainant’s meter was 1.4. Accordingly, the account of the complainant was overhauled on the report of ME Lab. In this regard, a detailed notice vide memo No.1751 dated 30.09.2014 was issued to the complainant in which the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.24,821/-. So, the demand of Rs.24,,821/- has been raised by the Opposite Party accordingly to rules and regulations of the PSPCL.  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.C18 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Vipan Vig, A.E. Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
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 stands fully proved on record that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide connection bearing account No. IB27/122-X under DS category. The complainant submitted that he has been making the payment of all the electricity consumption charges to the Opposite Party  regularly without any default.   In the month of September/ October, 2013, the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was found running very fast. The complainant lodged complaint with Opposite Party and also submitted application  dated 25.10.2013 (Ex.C5) challenging the functioning of the meter and also deposited meter challenge fee of Rs.120/- vide receipt Ex.C3. On 26.10.2013, officials of the Opposite Party came to the premises of the complainant and checked the meter and submitted their report dated 26.10.2013 (Ex.C4) stating that the meter is running fast and the same should be got checked in ME Lab. Resultantly, the meter was changed and the old meter was sent to ME Lab for checking. Complainant was called in ME Lab, but the meter was not checked in his presence. However, the Opposite Party issued excessive bills dated 23.6.2013, 23.8.2013, 23.10.2013 and 21.12.2013. The complainant challenged these bills before the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party corrected these bills. The complainant was satisfied with the bill dated 23.6.2013 which was reduced from 978 units to 699 units and bill dated 23.8.2013 which was reduced from 841 to 601 units.
7. However, ld.counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments challenged the bills dated 23.10.2013 and 21.12.2013 only, by submitting that no doubt these bills dated 23.10.2013 and 21.12.2013 have also been changed by the Opposite Party from 4331 units to 3094 units and 440 units to 1562 units respectively. So, ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant challenges only these two bills dated 23.10.2013 and 21.12.2013. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party admitted that the officials of the Opposite Party visited the premises of the complainant on 26.10.2013 and checked the meter vide report dated 26.10.2013 Ex.OP7 in which they have admitted that the meter of the complainant was not working properly. Resultantly, this meter was removed and sent to ME Lab for checking. The report of the ME Lab Ex.OP8 also proves that the meter of the complainant was not working properly, rather it was giving reading more than the consumption. So, the Opposite Party has changed the bills of the complainant i.e.  bill dated 23.10.2013 from 4331 units to 3094 units and bill dated 21.12.2013 from 440 units to 1562 units. Opposite Party in its pleadings as well as evidence produced on record has admitted that the meter of the complainant was not working properly, rather it was giving reading more than the actual consumption as is evidenct from the checking report dated 26.10.2013 Ex.OP7 and ME Lab report Ex.OP8.  So, the Opposite Party was not justified in correcting the bills under challenge i.e. bill dated 23.10.2013 from 4331 units to 3094 units and bill dated 21.12.2013 from 440 units to 1562 units. All this shows that the Opposite Party has corrected these bills without following any procedure or rules and regulation of the PSPCL. Therefore, the demand raised by the Opposite Party through these bills dated 23.10.2013 and 21.12.2013 is not sustainable.
8. Consequently, the demand raised by the Opposite Party vide bills dated 23.10.2013 and 21.12.2013 from the complainant is hereby set aside. However, the Opposite Party is at liberty to charge these bills from the complainant on average basis i.e. on the basis of consumption of the meter of the complainant for the corresponding period in the last year. The amount, if any, paid by the complainant against these bills be adjusted in the future consumption bills of the complainant. 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 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: 23-07-2015.                                                  (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member