DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

CC.No.503 of 03-10-2012

Decided on 26-02-2013

Veer Singh aged about 32 years s/o Dev Karan r/o SCF No.67, Phase-I, Model Town Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary at Patiala.

2.Sub Divisional Officer,Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Civil Lines, Bathinda.

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Civil Lines, Sub Division, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Sandeep Bansal, counsel for complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Daljit Singh Brar, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that an electricity connection bearing No.B12 MT110303W and a meter bearing No.71451 has been installed at SCF No.67, Phase-I, Model Town Bathinda in the name of its owner Gian Singh by the opposite parties. The complainant uses only sanctioned load and not beyond it. The bills sent by the opposite parties to the complainant has been paid by him and nothing ever remained due against him. The complainant received the bill of Rs.22,520/-, which has been issued against the average basis on dated nil. The said bill has been generated after submitting the written complaint by the complainant to the opposite parties. The impugned bill does not bear any date. After the investigation, the complainant found that the meter reader visited on Sunday, so the status of the meter has been shown as 'lock', meaning thereby the premises locked. Previously, also it has been shown from 2011 by the opposite parties in the bills issued to the complainant and the same are being sent to him on the average basis as the meter reader visits/visited on Sunday, so in the bill, the date has not been mentioned, but the status of the meter has been shown 'L'. The complainant visited many times to the opposite parties regarding his grievance but to no effect. The opposite parties are deceiving/extorting the money from the complainant illegally and showed the status of the meter L(Lock) for two months and after two months the same has been shown O (Open), but no reading has been recorded as per the consumption by the meter reader. The bills are not sent by the opposite parties as per the actual consumption rather the same are being sent to him on the average basis. When the opposite parties showed the status 'L' and no reading was changed, the bills were sent to the complainant on the average basis. The said bills of the average basis has been paid by the complainant to the opposite parties regularly but even after getting deposited the same, they sent him next consolidated bill of the electricity, in which the amount/consumption of average bills are also included. The details of the disputed bills are given for the period from 26.2.2011 to 26.6.2011 dated Nil; 25.6.2011 to 26.12.2011 dated Nil; 26.12.2011 to 26.4.2012 and 26.4.2012 to 21.6.2012 dated Nil. On the same date, the neighbour of the complainant namely Gurmail Singh having shop-cum-flat bearing No.68 has got bill on dated 26.8.2012, it was Sunday, so the complainant has come to know that all the previous bills, which have shown the status 'L' that were generated on Sunday reports of the meter reader and after that the meter reader had never come to the office of the complainant thus this is intentional on his part. The regular night guard is living at one room situated on the roof of the said shop and he is regularly consuming petty electricity for his daily needs, so why the meter is not running. An authorized representative of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant and got signed the report from his employee after recording the reading and checked the meter and told him that they will take action against the meter reader as why he was showing the premises locked. The complainant also sent a notice to the SDO, PSPCL, Civil Lines and PSPCL, Head Office Patiala after the receipt of the last bill dated 30.8.2012 to settle the dispute but to no effect. The last bill of Rs.22,530/- sent by the opposite parties for the total consumed units, has already been paid by the complainant w.e.f 25.6.2011 till date i.e. approximately of 15 months. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned bill/bills; to refund the excess amount and not to disconnect his said electricity connection alongwith interest, cost, compensation.

2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the bill has been sent to the complainant on the average basis as his premises was found locked by the meter reader. The excess bill amount received against the bill issued on the average basis, is adjusted in the future bill of the consumer. The meter reader has not taken the reading on Sunday only. The bill dated 18.9.2012 has been issued for a sum of Rs.22,530/- and not for Rs.22,520/- and it has been issued for 890 units and Rs.15,740/- has been included in this bill being the arrears of the previous bill dated 20.7.2012 which was upto 3.8.2012 and now bill has become Rs.23,132/- after adding surcharges of Rs.602/-. The opposite parties further pleaded that the bill issued for the period from 26.2.2011 to 25.6.2011 of Rs.3729/- has been adjusted and Rs.8182/- has been adjusted in the bill dated 22.1.2012 issued for the period from 25.6.2011 to 25.10.2011.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admittedly, the complainant is having electricity connection bearing No.B12 MT110303W and a meter bearing No.71451 installed at SCF No.67, Phase-I, Model Town Bathinda in the name of its owner Gian Singh.

6. The submission of the complainant is that he has taken the said shop on rent for earning his livelihood. The bill of Rs.22,520/- has been issued to the complainant on the average basis on dated nil. The said bill has been generated after submitting the written complaint by the complainant to the opposite parties. The meter reader visited the premises of the complainant on Sunday, so the status of the meter has been shown as 'lock'. Earlier the meter reader has also recorded the reading and shown the 'lock' status and the bills have been sent to the complainant on the average basis by the opposite parties as the meter reader visited on Sunday. The complainant requested the opposite parties to do needful but they did not pay any heed to his requests. The 'lock' status is shown for two months and after two months the same has been shown O (Open), but no reading has been recorded as per the consumption by the reader. The bills are not being sent by the opposite parties in respect of the said electricity connection as per the actual consumption rather the same are being sent to him on the average basis. When the opposite parties showed the status 'L' and no reading was changed, the bills were sent to the complainant on the average basis. The said bills of the average basis has been paid by the complainant to the opposite parties regularly but despite that they sent him next consolidated bill of the electricity, in which the amount/consumption average bills are also included. The complainant has given the details of the disputed bills as under:-

The complainant further submitted that all the bills are generated on the basis of Sunday reports as his neighbour namely Gurmail Singh having shop-cum-flat bearing No.68 has got the bill on dated 26.8.2012, it was Sunday and the said shop was closed on Sunday. Earlier Gian Singh, the owner of the said shop filed the complaint vide C.C No.410 on dated 10.9.2010 which has been decided on 13.1.2011 in favour of the complainant. In this complaint the complainant has challenged the bills upto 26.12.2009. There is regular night guard living at one room which is on the roof of the said shop and he regularly consumes petty electricity for his daily needs. Accordingly, the meter must record some reading. An authorized representative of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant and got signed the report from his employee after recording the reading and checked the meter. The complainant also sent a notice to the SDO, PSPCL, Civil Lines and PSPCL, Head Office Patiala after the receipt of the last bill dated 30.8.2012 to settle the dispute but to no effect. The last bill of Rs.22,530/- sent by the opposite parties for the total consumption units, has already been paid by the complainant w.e.f 25.6.2011 till date i.e. of approximately 15 months.

7. On the other hand the submissions of the opposite parties are that the bill has been sent to the complainant on the average basis as his premises was found locked by the meter reader. The excess bill amount received against the bill issued on the average basis, is adjusted in the future bill of the consumer. The opposite parties denied that the meter reader has taken the reading on Sunday only. The bill dated 18.9.2012 has been issued for a sum of Rs.22,530/- and not for Rs.22,520/- and it has been issued for 890 units and Rs.15,740/- has been included in this bill being the arrears of the previous bill dated 20.7.2012 which was upto 3.8.2012 and now bill has become Rs.23,132/- after adding surcharges of Rs.602/-. The opposite parties further submitted that the bill issued for the period from 26.2.2011 to 25.6.2011 of Rs.3729/- has been adjusted and Rs.8182 has been adjusted in the bill dated 22.1.2012 issued for the period from 25.6.2011 to 25.10.2011. Hence the complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

8. The complainant wrote a letter to SDO, PSPCL, Commercial-I vide Ex.C2 for issuing the wrong bill in meter bearing No.B12 MT110303W which is installed in the name of Gian Singh, SCF No.67, Phase-I, Model Town Bathinda. In this letter the complainant has requested that he has been using the premises on rent from last 4 years. The bill dated 19.5.2012 shows 'open' status but no meter reading is mentioned, whereas he is regularly using the electricity in his above mentioned premises. After this the officer of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant and got signed a report from his executive after recording the reading, checked the meter and conveyed him that the opposite parties will take the action against the meter reader why he was showing the premises locked. The executive of the complainant told to the officer of the opposite parties that the shop is regularly open from 12 noon in the morning and in evening from 5 pm to 8 pm. The meter reader has recorded the status of the meter twice 'lock' and twice 'open' whereas there is regular night guard living in one room on the roof of the premises and he regularly consumes the electricity daily as per his requirements. But the meter reading did not record any reading which is a negligence on the part of the opposite parties and the next bill sent by them is showing the total consumption for the last 8 months in a single bill and the complainant had paid all the previous bills which were delivered to him. The complainant has also mentioned in this letter that this has happened twice as earlier also the owner of his premises has filed the the complaint before Consumer Forum and that has been decided in the favour of the connection holder. The complainant requested the opposite parties to take the action against the Area Meter Reader.

A further perusal of documents placed on file shows that the complainant is paying the bills regularly. In bill dated 18.9.2012 that has been issued for Rs.22,530/-, the old reading has been shown as 22774 and consumption 890 and the Current Financial Year 15740, whereas the Consumption Data Ex.R2 produced by the opposite parties shows that before issuing the bill for Rs.22,530/-, the meter has been showing the reading of 20510 and the same reading has been recording by the meter reader from 26.8.2011 whereas on 26.12.2011 to 22.1.2012, the meter status has been shown 'open' but no reading has been shown recorded by the meter reader. Thereafter the status of the meter has been shown 'lock'. On 26.4.2012 to 19.5.2012 the old reading is shown as 20510 and the new reading is also shown as 20510 whereas the meter status is shown 'open' that means the premises was open in the billing cycle of 26.12.2011 to 22.1.2012 and 26.4.2012 to 19.5.2012. Again further perusal of Ex.R2 shows that the old reading has been shown in the billing cycle 21.6.2012 to 20.7.2012 as 20510 and new reading as 22774. Thereafter the meter status was again shown 'lock' on bill cycle 26.8.2012 to 18.9.2012 and status 'N' is shown on 26.11.2012. This consumption data clearly shows that even when the said premises was opened, the opposite parties have not recorded the reading and sent the bill on the average basis that amounts to deficiency in the service on their part. When the said premises was opened, the opposite parties should have recorded the reading but with malafide intention, earlier they sent the bill on the average basis and then they recorded the reading from 20510 to 22774 in billing cycle 21.6.2012 to 20.7.2012.

9. If for the arguments sake it is believed that the meter reader has been visiting the premises of the complainant to record the reading on Sunday and if he found the said premises was locked on Sunday, he should have gone to the said premises on any other working day when the said shop was open but no such efforts has been done by the opposite parties. Instead of recording the reading, the opposite parties sent the bill of Rs.22,530/- to the complainant. Moreover if it was inconvenient for the meter reader to record the reading on Sunday, the opposite parties should have installed the said meter outside the shop of the complainant. But again no efforts have been done by the opposite parties which amounts to gross deficiency in service on their part.

10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties and the bill of Rs.22,530/- is hereby quashed and the opposite parties are directed to issue the new bill to the complainant after overhauling his account and the amount already paid by the complainant be adjusted in his current bills. The opposite parties further directed to install the said meter outside the premises of the complainant. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

26-02-2013

Vikramjit Kaur Soni

President

Amarjeet Paul

Member

Sukhwinder Kaur

Member