THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 591 of 2014
Date of Institution : 12.11.2014
Date of Decision : 11.08.2015
Upkar Singh s/o late Sh. Bakshish Singh, aged 53 years r/o G.T. Road, Putlighar,Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
The SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,Sub Division Islamabad, Amritsar
The Chairman of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Ashok Kumar Popal,Advocate
For the opposite parties : Sh.Anil Sharma,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
-2-
1 Present complaint has been filed by Upkar Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that an electric connection bearing account No. 22IB60035H has been installed in the name of Bakhshish Singh, father of the complainant in his shop for earning livelihood. According to the complainant Bakhshish Singh died on 20.6.2007 and after his death complainant has been using this electric connection and has been making payment of the electricity bills regularly. His average bills bi-monthly were ranged between Rs. 10000/- to Rs. 15000/-. Opposite party issued bill dated 25.11.2011 for Rs. 32270/- . On receipt of bill complainant approached the opposite party that they have issued wrong bill due defective or jump-in meter reading. The complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 450/- as meter challenge fee which the complainant deposited vide receipt No. 028398 dated 23.11.2011. The complainant also deposited the said bill under protest. But the opposite party never changed their electricity meter . Opposite party further sent bill of Rs. 32210/- for the month of November 2011 to December 2011. In the month of March, 2012 opposite party changed the electricity meter of the complainant with new reading as 2 and sent bill of Rs. 23580/- on average basis. Complainant has alleged that opposite party neither packed & changed the electricity meter in the presence of the complainant nor got his signature for sending the same in the Lab nor sent any written notice to the complainant before its testing . Opposite party further sent bill of Rs. 22550/- from meter reading 2 to 3475 units for the month of Match to May 2012. The complainant again approached the opposite party for correction of said bill. Thereafter opposite party sent bill of Rs. 10300/- with reading 3475 to 5051 which the complainant has paid. Third bill of Rs. 17150/- for meter reading from 5051 to 783 was sent . This matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party for its correction, but they forced to pay this bill as they will look after later. Subsequently opposite party sent wrong e-bill of Rs. 30770/- having meter reading from 783 to 9175 . Complainant again made written complaint to the opposite party on 23.11.2012 as they were sending bills on jumping of meter reading, but they again failed to correct the same. Opposite party again sent a bill of Rs. 57328/- in which they added arrears of Rs. 29470/-. The complainant approached the opposite party and requested that there was no arrear of bill, but they did not listen the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to cancel the bill of Rs. 57328/- and issue bill of actual usage . Opposite party be also directed to refund the charges recovered from the complainant since March 2011 due to jump of meter reading from March 2011 to November 2012. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that bill dated 25.11.2011 for Rs. 32270/- was issued to the complainant according to actual consumption of electricity . The complainant challenged the said bill after depositing Rs. 450/- as meter challenge fee. After that MCO No. C-22/M/11/3027 dated 20.12.2011 was issued which was effected on 27.1.2012 and the meter of the complainant was removed from the premises of the complainant and the same was checked in ME Lab in the presence of representative of the complainant and the same was found OK. The bill for 3475 units for the month of May 2012 was issued to the complainant according to consumption of electricity meter of the complainant. The bill dated 7.2.2012 for 1576 units was also issued according to actual consumption of electricity meter of the complainant. It was submitted that audit party of the opposite party noted that in the month of September 2012 average bill for 2319 and in the month of November 2012 average bill of 4220 units were issued to the complainant but actual consumption was 9175-783= 8392, so the amount of Rs. 29504/- of the month of September 2012 and November 2012 were added in the bill dated 9.9.2012 and the same was added according to rules and regulations of the opposite party and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
3 Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copies of complaints Ex.C-1 to C-3, copy of checking report Ex.C-4, copies of bill alongwith payment receipts Ex.C-5 to C-52, copy of death certificate Ex.C-53.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Harjit Singh,AEE Ex.OP1, copy of detail of account Ex.OP2, copy of consumption data Ex.OP3, copy of half margin Ex.OP4, copy of LCR Ex.OP5, copy of MCO Ex.OP6, copy of ME Lab report Ex.OP6.
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 the parties.
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 vide account No. 22IB60035H. The complainant submitted that the usual electricity usage bills of the complainant were of Rs. 10000/- to Rs. 15000/- bi-monthly. But the opposite party issued bill dated 25.11.2011 for Rs. 32270/- for the period from 4.9.2011 to 9.11.2011. However , the complainant deposited this amount and also challenged the functioning of the meter. Thereafter the opposite party changed the meter of the complainant in March, 2012 with starting reading at “2”. However, bill was issued to the complainant on average basis for Rs. 23580/- which was also paid by the complainant. The opposite party issued bill of Rs. 22550/- with reading 2 to 3475 units for the month of March to May 2012 and the complainant also paid this bill. Opposite party further sent bill of Rs. 10300/- with reading from 3475 to 5051 and thereafter a bill of Rs. 17150/- for meter reading from 5051 to 783 with “F” code as per consumption data Ex.OP3. This matter was also brought to the notice of the opposite party. Opposite party sent another e bill of Rs. 30770/- with meter reading 783 to 9175 for the period from 10.9.2012 to 15.11.2012. Now the opposite party sent bill for Rs. 57328/- Ex.C-52 for the period from July to September 2014 in which the opposite party has added an arrears of Rs. 29470/-. The complainant has paid last bill for 9290/- against receipt dated 28.7.2014. Opposite party has also failed to provide details of the arrears mentioned in this bill Ex.C-52 nor rectified the 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 bill dated 25.11.2011 for Rs. 32270/- was issued to the complainant according to actual consumption of the electricity meter. The complainant challenged the said electricity meter after depositing Rs. 450/- and challenge fee. Resultantly MCO Ex.OP6 bearing No. C-22/M/11/3027 dated 20.12.2011 was issued which was effected on 27.1.2012 and the old meter of the complainant was removed from the premises of the complainant and was checked in ME Lab in the presence of representative of the complainant and the meter of the complainant was found OK vide report of ME Lab Ex.OP7. The other bills of the complainant were also issued on the basis of actual consumption of the electricity meter of the complainant and the complainant paid the same. However, there is dispute regarding bill dated 9.9.2014 Ex.C-52 vide which the opposite party has charged from the complainant a sum of Rs. 55090/- in which the opposite party has added an amount of Rs. 29504/- as arrears . As per the audit party of the opposite party in the month of September 2012 average bill for 2319 units and bill on average basis for the month of November 2012 of 4220 units were issued to the complainant and actual consumption of the complainant was 9175 minus 783 = 8392. So the amount of Rs. 29504/- of the month of September 2012 and November 2012 has been added in the bill of 9.9.2014. The Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that opposite party has charged a sum of Rs. 55090/- from the complainant through this bill Ex.C-52 as per acutal current consumption and previous charges of 29470 units. 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 in the year 2011 i.e. bill dated 25.11.2011 for Rs. 32270/- as per the actual consumption of the electricity made by the complainant. The complainant challenged the functioning of the meter by depositing Rs. 450/- as challenge fee. Resultantly MCO dated 20.12.2011 Ex.OP6 was issued which was effected on 27.1.2012. The old meter of the complainant was removed and was checked in ME Lab in the presence of the Representative of the complainant and as per report of ME Lab Ex.OP7 the meter was found OK. The complainant could not point out any defect in this report. The complainant paid the entire bill. So now the dispute remains regarding bill dated 9.9.2014 Ex.C-52 issued by the opposite party to the complainant for Rs. 55090/- in which the opposite party has claimed Rs. 29470/- as arrears. Opposite party has submitted that as per the consumption data of the complainant Ex.OP3, there was wrong reading of consumption from 5571 to 783 i.e.5051 reading on 5.7.2012 and 783 reading on 10.9.2012 and thereafter there was reading of 9175 on 5.11.2012. All this shows that there was wrong reading made by the meter reader or there was some defect in the display of the meter of the complainant and this bill dated 10.9.2012 for 2319 units was issued to the complainant on average basis with “F” code. So the audit party of the opposite party ordered to charge arrears of 8392 units (9175 - 783 = 8392) from the complainant amounting to Rs. 29504/- as arrears from the complainant through this bill Ex.C-52.
9. The perusal of consumption data of the complainant Ex.OP3 fully proves that the meter of the complainant was defective or its display was not working properly rather it fell down that is why the meter of the complainant had shown consumption from 5.7.2012 to 10.9.2012 from reading 5051 to 783 which is not possible and then on 5.11.2012 its reading was 9175. However, thereafter the meter never fluctuated . This demand of arrears as Rs. 29504/- raised by the opposite party from the complainant is not based on principle of natural justice. As such we hold that opposite party is not justified to claim the arrears of Rs. 29470/- from the complainant through this bill Ex.C-52.
10. Resultantly this demand of Rs. 29470/- raised by the opposite party from the complainant as arrears through bill Ex.C-52 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set-aside. However, the opposite party shall be entitled to charge from the complainant for the period from September 2012 to November 2012 on average basis. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, 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.
11.08.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
