DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB-152026 (PUNJAB).

C. C. No.04 of 2016

Instituted On: 12.01.2016

Decided On: 21.11.2016

Ajay Kumar son of Ram Kumar R/o Bawa Sant Singh Road, near Bijli Wala Khooh, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

.......... Complainant.

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Assistant Executive Engineer, City Sub-Division, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

..........Opposite Party.

Complaint under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date.

Quorum: Sh. Karnail Singh Ahhi, President.

Smt. Meenakshi, Member.

Smt. Mandeep Kaur, Member.

Present: Sh.Gautam Arora Advocate for Complainant.

Sh.KS Sammewali Advocate for OP.

ORDER

KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

1. Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to restore the electricity connection bearing No.Y62GM251373A installed in the shop of the complainant in his name, which has been illegally and malafidely disconnected by the opposite party on dated 13.10.2015 under the garb of the illegal demand of Rs.88,293/- which has been illegally demand, being amount of average basis bill dated 29.9.2015 and for installing the electricity meter of the complainant, at the site which has been removed at the time of disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant; to withdraw the above detailed illegal demand of Rs.88,293/- in the electricity bill dated 29.9.2015, on account of arrears, which is against the rules and regulations of the PSPCL and is not likely to be paid by the complainant to the OP on average basis; to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment, agony suffered by the complainant; to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant is having electricity connection No.Y62GM251373A which has been installed in the shop of the complainant since long and the complainant is paying the electricity bills regularly with the OP except the present amount in question. The complainant is earning his livelihood by doing his work in this shop which is the only source of income of the complainant. The electricity connection was previously installed inside the shop of the complainant and in the year 2013, the OP suo motto started charging on average bills from the complainant on average basis and they never visited to check the meter reading in the shop of the complainant due to the reason best known to them. The complainant many times requests with the OP to issue him the bill of actual consumption basis on the basis of actual meter reading from the meter installed inside his shop. In this regard, one representation was given by the complainant to the OP on 17.10.2013 to SDO, PSPCL, Sri Muktsar Sahib but no heed was paid on such matter and the OP continuously issued the bills to the complainant on average basis. Thereafter, a similar kinds of representation was moved by the complainant before the authorities of PSPCL, Sri Muktsar Sahib regarding charging of electricity consumption amount on actual consumption basis rather not on average basis so that the complainant may pay the actual consumption bill to the OP and also requested to make the system error made regarding charge bill on average basis. But the concerned employees of the OP put off the matter under lame excuses and asked the complainant that they will soon solve his problem. Thereafter, the meter of the complainant was put out of the shop in the meter box installed in open area of locality by the OP. Even after shifting the meter outside the shop of the complainant, the OP regularly sent bill to the complainant on average basis and never paid heed towards the requests of the complainant till date. The complainant was always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to pay the actual consumption bill with the OP. The complainant was very surprised to receive the electricity bill in question dated 29.9.2015 in which the above detailed illegal demand in question was demanded from the complainant by the OP whereas the complainant is not liable to pay any such amount with the OP. The complainant is not in arrears of any such amount of Rs.88,293/- mentioned in this bill. The employees of the OP disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant on 13.10.2015 under the garb of this illegal demand and also removed the electricity meter from the site without giving any opportunity of being heard to the complainant, whereas, as per the facts and circumstances, the complainant is not liable to pay such huge amount of Rs.88,293/- to the OP and his connection is likely to be restored with immediate effect. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, complainant has filed the present complainant seeking relief mentioned above.

3. Upon notice, opposite party appeared through its respective counsel and filed written reply pleaded that the connection in question of commercial nature. In the month of January 2013, the meter of the complainant become defective and bill as on average basis which was not paid by the complainant. The audit party added the difference of consumption and reading on average basis and the complainant not paid the bill from September 2013. Other allegations of the complainant have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. Parties were granted sufficient opportunities to produce evidence in order to prove their case.

5. Complainant counsel Sh.Gautam Arora tendered into evidence affidavit of Ajay Kumar Complainant Ex.C2, bill dated 29.09.2015 Ex.C-3, photocopy of representation before the SDO Ex.C-4, photocopy of bill & receipt dated 01.12.2013 for Rs.5350/- after adjustment of bill and taking the bill to actual consumption by R.A Ex.C-5, photocopy of bill dated 18.03.2015 Ex.C-6 amounting to Rs.84341/- and photocopy of bill dated 29.09.2015 Ex.C-7. Complainant also examined CW-1 Subhash Chander and he tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and thereafter complainant counsel closed evidence on behalf of complainant.

6. OP counsel Sh.KS Sammewali tendered copies of bill ledgers Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP17, affidavit of Sukhjinder Singh, SDO, City Sub Division, PSPCL, Sri Muktsar Sahib Ex.OP18 and closed evidence on behalf of complainant.

7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the file.

8. Complainant counsel Sh.Gautam Arora argued that OP released domestic connection in the name of complainant way back. After release of connection, complainant used to deposit the consumption charges and the OP vide bill dated 29.9.2015 raised the illegal demand of Rs.88,293/- as arrears. The meter of the complainant was not properly functioning that is why complainant moved one application Ex.C4 to the OP for the change of the meter and to correct the illegal bill but no action was taken. Now, the OP has demanded Rs.88,293/- on the basis of average consumption since 2013. As per the law, OP has no right to charge the average bill beyond the period of six months. In support of arguments, complainant counsel referred the law and also referred the documentary evidence then prayed to allow the complaint with the prayer that OP be stopped from demanding Rs.88,293/- and requested that directions be issued to the OP for the restoration of the connection with cost.

9. OP counsel Sh.KS Sammewali argued that in the complaint Ajay Kumar no where stated regarding status of connection either domestic or non residential. More so, OP has placed on file documentary evidence/proof that status of the connection in question is NRS (Non Residential Status). When status of the OP is commercial then firstly, the complaint is not maintainable. More so, the meter of the complainant was in the shop run by the complainant for commercial purposes and on the request of complainant, the meter was changed twice but the bill of Rs.88,293/- demanded by OP is of the actual consumption. When complainant is not ready to pay the bill of actual consumption then no relief can be granted. Lastly, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

10. Before coming to the real controversy between the parties, this Forum is to appreciate firstly whether the electric connection installed in the shop of complainant is domestic or commercial. Complainant nowhere stated the status and it is pleaded that connection was released in the shop. When connection released in the shop and shop is located in the Grain Market, Sri Muktsar Sahib which is posh area then it is to be considered that connection is for commercial purpose. More so, complainant not adduced an iota of evidence but at the same time OP has placed on file the various documents i.e. copies of ledger since 5/2012 to 1/2015 Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP17 and in the ledger the status of the meter situated in the shop of complainant is mentioned “NRS” means Non Residential Status. When it is pointed out qua status of the complainant by the OP counsel then complainant counsel could not rebut. More so, OP has place on file affidavit of engineer Sukhjinder Singh Ex.OP18 and all theses documents shows that status of the connection is for commercial purpose not as pleaded by the complainant.

11. In the light of discussion made above and appreciating documentary evidence, the connection in the name of complainant is of status “NRS” then complainant is not a consumer and complaint is not maintainable.

12. Evidence adduced by both the parties, stand incorporated in earlier part of the order. There is no need to repeat.

13. Now the question arises that demand raised by OP is whether illegally or not? No doubt there is one application Ex.C4 moved by complainant to the OP for the rectification of code “F” in the bill and to rectify the bill. That application is photocopy and is pertaining to September 2013. Besides this complainant has placed on file the evidence which proves that complainant not deposited the consumption charges since January 2013.

14. Complainant counsel in support of his contention relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi, order datd 23.11.2007 passed in Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd Vs. R.S.Products Pvt Ltd and in the said authority, the law is laid down as under:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1) (g) Electricity Bill- Undue delay in not changing defective meter since 1997- Though no tampering of meter found- But respondent forced to pay amount under protest- Complaint allowed by fora below- Challenged by revision- Held, bill has been raised after five years while conducting an inquiry for a defective meter, specially when there was need for its replacement- Petitioner has been visiting time and again and checking the meter yet it took 5 years conclude that meter was defective and raised one time bill of Rs.17 lakhs-Deficiency in service proved in terms of undue delay in not changing the defective meter since 1997 and not raising correct bill in due time- No interference warranted in impugned order-Revision dismissed”.

15. Besides this, complainant counsel also relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble National Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, order dated 18.3.1998 passed in Appeal No.17 of 1998 titled as Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Operation, Sub Divn.No.2, Chandigarh Versus B.R.Sur and the law is laid down as under:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2(1) (g) and 14- Electricity bill- For the period 19.1.84 to 4.10.88 served on complainant in March 1993- Apprehension by appellants that electricity meter in the premises stopped working- Complainant was charged on average basis- No steps taken by appellants for repair or replacement of meter for a period of about 4 years- This itself was a deficiency- Order of District Forum setting aside the bill of Rs.2238.27/- upheld”.

16. In both the authorities the law is laid down that there was defect in the meter and the electricity department did not change the meter despite request availing five years period and during that period bill was charged on average basis. Both authorities are not applicable to the case in hand as the case is hand is pertaining to the year May 2012 to January 2015. For that period, complainant not deposited even an single Penni. Complainant counsel also relied upon the law laid down by Hon'ble Haryana State Commission, Chandigarh, order dated 9.5.1994 passed in First Appeal No.194 of 1994 and the law is laid down as under:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2 and 14- Arrears of electricity charges- Board cannot recover the arrears of electricity charges for the defective meter from the consumer beyond the period of six months”.

17. In the authority referred above, the law is laid down that electricity charges for the defective meter can not be charged from the consumer beyond the period of six months. When this Forum has come to the conclusion that connection in question is commercial (NRS) then on the basis of authority, no benefit can be extended to the complainant.

18. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint is without merit and same stand dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, liberty is granted to the complainant to approach the appropriate authority. Copy of order be issued to the parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.