THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Complaint No. 805-13

Date of Institution : 2.12.2013

Date of Decision : 11.2.2015

Satpal Singh Saini aged about 72 years S/o Sh.Gurdas Ram resident of H.No. 153, Partap Nagar, G.T.Road, Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala service through AE Engineer, P.P. Power Corporation, Mall Mandi Sub Division, Amritsar

....Opp.party

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : In person

For the opposite party : Sh. Gurmeet Singh Verka,Adv

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Satpal Singh Saini under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is holder of electric connection bearing account No. C38PN680271N. According to the complainant since the installation of the said electric connection he has been making payment of the electricity bills rgularly. Complainant received an inflated bill of Rs. 14570/- on 29.5.2013. The complainant challenged this bill with the opposite party on

-2-

7.6.2013 and the bill was reduced to Rs. 7285/-. After that complainant received another inflated bill on 3.8.2013 for Rs. 11190/-. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party and asked the opposite party to correct the bill and the said bill was reduced to Rs. 2635/-. After that the said meter was replaced. The defective meter was taken by the opposite party and new meter was installed. But till today the report regarding the checking of the meter was not given by the opposite party. Even the replaced meter was also defective and was running at higher speed than normal. Complainant again received inflated bill on 26.9.2013 for Rs. 35930/- for the period from 3.8.2013 to 26.9.2013. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party and the meter reader checked the connection of the complainant who orally told regarding the jumping of the meter to the AEE, Mall Mandi, Amritsar . The complainant again challenged the said meter but he was forced to make the payment of Rs. 35930/- which the complainant deposited by cheque on 7.10.2013. The complainant also deposited the meter challenge fee on 11.10.2013. The said defective meter was replaced on 7.11.2013 and after that complainant received bill dated 12.12.2013 for Rs. 2600/-. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the excess amount charged from the complainant due to defective meter. Compensation of Rs. 60000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was denied that complainant has been making payment of the bills regularly. In this regard it was submitted that opposite party sent bill amounting to Rs. 14570/- on 29.5.2013 for actual consumption but the complainant challenged the bill by depositing meter challenge fee on 7.6.2013 and deposited 50% i.e Rs. 7258/- of the impugned bill amount of Rs. 14570/-. It was denied that bill was reduced to Rs. 7258/-. Thereafter opposite party sent bill dated 3.8.2013 for Rs. 11190/- and the

-3-

same was prepared with 'C' code on average basis of 433 units for Rs. 2655/- becuase meter had been changed. On 26.9.2013 opposite party sent bill with 'O' code for Rs. 35930/- and the same was paid by the complainant without any protest. Thereafter the complainant challanged the bill by depositing meter challange fee on 11.,10.2013. It was submitted that as and when the complainant consumed more units of electricity, the same were challenged by the complainant. It was denied that after receiving the bill of Rs. 35930/- complainant approached the meter reader of the opposite party who told regarding jumping of the meter to the AEE. It was denied that meter was running very fast.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavits Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, copies of bills alongwith payment receipts Ex.C-3 to C-35.

4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Amit Deepak Ex.OP1, checking report Ex.OP2, copy of MCOs Ex.OP3 and OP4, Consumption data Ex.OP5 and OP6,affidavit of Er.Amit Deepak AEE Commercial Ex.OP7, copy of details of audit charged Ex.OP8.

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 complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite party.

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 having electric connection account No. C38PN68027IN under DS category. . The complainant alleges that he had been making the payment of all the bills issued by the opposite party regularly without any default. However, the complainant received bill dated 29.5.2013 of Rs. 14570/- . The complainant challenged this bill with the opposite party on 7.6.2013 and deposited Rs. 7285/- i.e 50% of the amount of the bill. Thereafter the complainant received another inflated bill dated

-4-

3.8.2013 for Rs. 11190/-. The complainant again approached the opposite party and challenged the functioning of the meter. The complainant paid Rs. 2635/- against this bill on 7.8.2013. Consequently the meter of the complainant was replaced and new meter was installed . Even the new meter installed by the opposite party was also defective and was running at higher speed than normal. This fact came to the knowledge of the complainant when he received inflated bill of Rs. 35,930/- on 26.9.2013. The complainant approached the opposite party. The complainant alleges that the meter reader of the opposite party told the complainant regarding the jumping of the meter and that meter was running very fast. However, AEE (Asstt.Executive Engineer) of the opposite party stated to the complainant that he had checked the meter working and found the same was normal. So the complainant was forced to pay Rs. 35,930/- on 7.10.2013 through cheque. The complainant also deposited meter challenge fee on 11.10.2013 vide receipt Ex.C-10 and again the meter was replaced on 7.11.2013. The complainant submitted that by charging the aforesaid inflated bills from the complainant, the opposite party has committed deficiency of service qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that opposite party sent bill of Rs. 14570/- on 29.5.2013 to the complainant for actual consumption. But the complainant challenged the bill by depositing the meter challenge fee on 7.6.2013 vide receipt Ex.C-7 and he deposited only 50% of the bill i.e Rs. 7258/- as against the total amount of bill Rs. 14570/-. Thereafter the opposite party sent bill dated 3.8.2013 of Rs. 11190/- to the complainant with “C” code on average basis of 433 units for Rs. 2655/-. Howevedr, this bill included unpaid arrears of the last bill . On 26.9.2013 opposite party sent bill of Rs. 35930/- with 'O' code to the complainant which was paid by the complainant without any protest. Thereafter the complainant challenged the functioning of the meter by depositing the meter challenge fee on 11.10.2013 vide receipt Ex.C-10. Opposite party denied that meter was running

-5-

very fast as alleged by the complainant. However, on 7.11.2013 meter of the complainant was replaced and thereafter bill was issued to the complainant for Rs. 2600/- with 'F' code. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant was issued bill dated 29.5.2013 for Rs. 14570/- Ex.C-3. The complainant challenged this bill and deposited 50% of the amount of this bill i.e Rs.7285/- vide receipt Ex.C-4. He also challenged the functioning of the meter by depositing meter challenge fee Rs. 120/- vide receipt dated 7.6.2013 Ex.C-7. But inspite of that the opposite party did not got tested the meter of the complainant nor issued any notice to the complainant regarding checking of the meter ; rather they issued another bill dated 3.8.2013 for Rs. 11190/- with 'C' code on average basis of 433 units, however, also added unpaid arrears of the previous bill. Thereafter, the meter was replaced and new meter was installed . On 26.9.2013 the opposite party issued bill of Rs. 35930/- with 'O' code. The complainant challenged this bill as well as functioning of this meter also. However, he deposited Rs. 35930/- vide receipt Ex.C-9 and also challenged the functioning of the meter by depositing meter challenge fee of Rs. 120/- vide receipt dated 11.10.2013 Ex.C-10. The complainant had challenged the functioning of the meter by depositing the requisite meter challenge fee vide receipt Ex.C-7 dated 7.6.2013. Then opposite party replaced the meter of the complainant and again they issued bill dated 26.9.2013 Ex.C-8 for Rs. 35,930/-. Again the complainant challenged the functioning of this meter by depositing Rs. 120/- as meter challenge fee vide receipt Ex.C-10 dated 11.10.2013 and again the meter was replaced on 7.11.2013. But the opposite party never got checked the meter of the complainant in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant. Opposite party could not produce any document to prove that the meter of the complainant was ever checked in the ME Lab nor the opposite party

-6-

could produce any letter issued to the complainant asking him to come present at the time of checking of the meter in the ME Lab. All this fully proves that opposite party has committed deficiency of service to the complainant because once the consumer challanges the meter by depositing requisite meter challenge fee and the meter of the complainant was replaced, it is the duty of the opposite party to get the meter checked in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant. But the opposite party could not produce any evidence that the meter of the complainant was ever checked in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant or in the absence of the complainant with the consent of the complainant. So the demand raised by the opposite party vide bills dated 29.5.2013 Ex.C-3, 3.8.2013 Ex.C-5 and 26.9.2013 Ex.C-8 for Rs. 14570/-, Rs.11190/- and Rs.35,930/- respectively is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the opposite party has not performed their duty nor checked the meter of the complainant in the presence of the complainant.

9. Consequently we set-aside the demand raised by the opposite party from the complainant vide bills dated 29.5.2013 Ex.C-3 for Rs. 14,570/-, bill dated 3.8.2013 Ex.C-5 of Rs. 11190/- and bill dated 26.9.2013 Ex.-8 for Rs. 35930/-. However, opposite party can charge the complainant regarding consumption of this period on average basis i.e on the basis of the consumption of the complainant for the corresponding period of the previous year. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

10. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

11.02.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)

Member