THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 158 of 2014

Date of Institution : 21.3.2014

Date of Decision : 28.08 2015

Surjit Kaur W/d of Late Gurmeet Singh aged 48 years R/o 786, Ramgharia Mohalla, Street No.2, Verka,Amritsar

...Complainant

Vs.

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala service through the SDO, Verka, Amritsar

....Opp.party

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

Present : For the complainant : Sh.Munish Kohli,Advocate

For the opposite party : Sh.N.S.Sandhu,Advocate

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Surjit Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she is the consumer of electricity vide account No. A435X160302Y with sanctioned load 1.95 KW under DS category which is in the name of Bahadur Singh from whom the complainant has purchased the property. According to the complainant since the purchase of the property she has been making payment of the electricity bills regularly. The complainant had received bill dated 18.2.2014 for Rs. 9210/-. On receipt of bill complainant approached the opposite party and moved complaint for the change of meter No. 2633276 as the same was not working properly. The said meter was changed and new meter was installed bearing No. 4854482 which was also not working . In this regard complainant again moved complaint to the opposite party and the said meter was changed with new meter bearing No. 4651879 in the month of August 2013 and the same was also not working in good condition. The complainant again approached the opposite party to rectify the bill as the electric meter was dead and the complainant never consumed electricity to such a great extent, but the opposite party did not pay any heed 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 alleged bill dated 18.2.2014. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant is a chronic defaulter in making payment of electricity bills and at present an amount of Rs. 7641/- is outstanding on account of actual consumption charges. It was submitted that complainant has not paid the bill of consumption charges after 13.2.2013 except she has made part payment against bill dated 13.8.2013 except she has made part payment against bill dated 13.8.2013 on 26.8.2014 to the tune of Rs. 5000/-. The bill dated 18.2.2014 was issued with C code for Rs. 9210/- in which the amount of Rs. 1772/- was excessively claimed due to inadvertence and on coming to know this fact, the complainant was given adjustment of this amount of Rs. 1772/- and after giving adjustment of the said amount, an amount of Rs. 7641/- was outstanding against the said connection on account of actual consumption charges and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-21.

4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Vijay Kumar,SDO Ex.OP1 , consumption data Ex.OP2.

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 the ld.counsel for the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for 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 complainant is the consumer of electricity vide account No. A435X160302Y with sanctioned load 1.95 KW under DS category which is in the name of Bahadur Singh and the complainant has purchased this property alongwith electric connection from said Bahadur Singh vide sale deed Ex.C-21. The complainant vide this complaint has challenged the bill dated 18.2.2014 Ex.C-8 for Rs.9210/- on the ground that it is arbitrary and the complainant has not consumed such a huge quantity of electricity. The complainant submitted that she requested the opposite party for the change of meter No. 2633276. The said meter was changed and new meter was installed by the opposite party bearing No.4854482. The said meter was also not working properly and on the request of the complainant, the officials of the opposite party visited the spot , checked the meter and found that the meter was dead. In this regard report dated 1.12.2012 Ex.C-18 was made. Thereafter the meter of the complainant was changed and new meter bearing No. 4651879 was installed in August 2013. But the same was also not working properly and it was given “F” code. The complainant submitted that she has never received any bill for such an exorbitant and excessive amount. In this regard she produced bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-17. The complainant also submitted written request dated 24.2.2014 Ex.C-20 in this regard to withdraw that bill. But the opposite party did not correct that bill. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant/consumer is a chronic defaulter in making payment of the electricity bills and as such at present a sum of Rs. 7641/- is outstanding on account of actual consumption of electricity charges. The complainant has not paid the bills of consumption charges after 13.2.20134 except she has made part payment against bill dated 13.8.2013 to the tune of Rs. 5000/- on 26.8.2013. The bill dated 18.2.2014 was issued to the complainant with “C” code for Rs. 9210/- in which the amount of Rs. 1772/- was excessive claimed due to inadvertence and when this fact came to the knowledge of the opposite party, the complainant was given adjustment of this amount of Rs. 1772/- and after adjustment a sum of Rs. 7641/- only is outstanding. 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 particularly from the perusal of the consumption data of the meter of the complainant Ex.OP2 , it stands fully proved on record that the meter of the complainant was changed so many times and every time new meter installed at the premises of the complainant, becomes defective. Even the glass of the meter of the complainant was also found broken and since 18.6.2011 complainant was being issued bills on average basis i.e. on the basis of consumption of electricity for the corresponding period for the previous years . But the meter of the complainant remained defective since 18.6.2011 and upto 11.12.2013 i.e. for a period of more than two years, so the bills were issued to the complainant on the basis of LDHF formula i.e. on the basis of load factor because the consumption of corresponding period for the previous year was also not available. This consumption data Ex.OP2 also proves that the complainant has not paid the electricity bills since 18.8.2012 . However, she paid Rs. 3500/- as part payment against bill dated 13.2.2013 and Rs. 5000/- against bill dated 13.8.2013. As such the previous amount due payable by the complainant accumulated. Opposite party has,therefore, sent the bill in question dated 18.2.2014 Ex.C-8 for Rs. 9210/- which included the arrears of the previous bills not paid by the complainant. However, opposite party came to know that an excess amount of Rs. 1772/- has been charged in this bill. So they deducted this amount and as such a sum of Rs. 7641/- is due payable by the complainant to the opposite party on account of consumption of electricity by the complainant. The opposite party has issued this bill as per rules and regulations of the opposite party and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant. However, the opposite party shall be liable to adjust the amount of the bills paid by the complainant and charged by the opposite party on the basis of LDHF formula based on load factor, subject to its adjustment on the basis of consumption of the corresponding period for the succeeding year. As such at present we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

9. Resultantly we hold that 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.

28.8.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member