DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOR`UM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.357 of 01-08-2012
Decided on 05-11-2012
Ram Lal aged about 50 years s/o Bhoja Ram, r/o Lakshmi Market, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Punjab State Power Corporation Lmt., The Mall Patiala, through its Secretary/Chairman.
2.S.D.O/AEE,Punjab State Power Corporation Lmt., City 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.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.Parveen Sharma, 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 the complainant is holding an electric connection No.B13GC130010F and there is nothing due towards him. There are many officials including J.Es. Meter Reader and Meter Inspector etc. to check the working of the meter in routine and if there is any defect in the meter/metering equipment then the officials are duty bound to change the meter or remove the defect or to inform the higher officials and if defect is not removed then consumer is not bound to make the payment. The opposite parties are duty bound to install the correct and accurate meter and condition of the meter is to be shown to the consumer at the time of the installation or removal when the defect occurs. The complainant used to get the bills between Rs.15,000/- to 17,000/-. The complainant got a bill dated 25.5.2012 of Rs.29,070/- which was very excessive but he paid the amount. Thereafter he got another bill dated 24.6.2012 of Rs.25,750/- and the meter code was shown 'N' and there was no new reading shown in the bill. The complainant protested the same and met with the opposite party No.2 for the correction of the bill but they assured the next bill would be issued correctly after adjusting the excess amount. The complainant has paid the bill on the assurance of the opposite party No.2. The complainant all of sudden got a bill on 23.7.2012 of Rs.64,650/- payable upto 7.8.2012 of 10137 units. The complainant met the opposite party No.2 after getting the bill and requested to correct the bill as they previously gave a promise to issue the correct bill but this time also the opposite parties issued incorrect bill on the average basis without explanation. No supplementary notice was ever issued before incorporating the alleged amount of Rs.64,650/- in his bill. There is no explanation why the amount of Rs.64,650/- has been raised against the consumption without any new reading. The code of the meter was shown as 'D' in the said bill. The complainant further alleged that he is entitled to get back the excess amount deposited against bill dated 25.5.2012 and 24.6.2012 with 18% interest p.a from the date of deposit the said bills till date. The complainant requested the opposite parties not to charge the amount of Rs.64,650/- and requested to charge the bill as per consumption but they have flatly refused to do so and threatened to disconnect the supply if the payment is not made. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to quash the bill dated 23.7.2012, to refund the excess amount paid against the bills dated 25.5.2012, 24.6.2012 alongwith interest, cost and compensation.
2. The 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 complainant is holding the electricity connection bearing No. B13GC130010F and the meter is tampered with by the consumer, thereby causing the defect in the meter, thus he is liable to pay the penalty as per the rules and regulations of the PSPCL. The opposite parties had installed the correct and accurate meter in the premises of the complainant. The opposite parties denied that the consumption of the complainant is between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.17,000/- as alleged. The consumption data for the period from April, 2011 to May, 2012 clearly shows that he was issued the bills for Rs.47,563/- in April, 2011, Rs.59,654/- in May, 2011, Rs.63,426/- in June, 2011, Rs.64,605/- in July, 2011, Rs.66,313/- in August, 2011, Rs.61,508/- in September, 2011, Rs.46,435/- in October, 2011, Rs.26,021/- in November, 2011, Rs.24,022/- in December, 2011, Rs.11,332/- in January, 2012, Rs.21,624/- in Fabruary 2012, Rs.23,269/- in March, 2012, Rs.41,158/- in April, 2012, Rs.28,998/- in May, 2012 and all the abovesaid bills were paid by him without raising any protest which clearly shows that he has been using the electricity for the units mentioned in all the abovesaid bills. The opposite parties admitted that they issued the bill dated 24.5.2012 for Rs.29,070/- and the said bill was issued as per the consumption of the complainant and the same was also paid by him without any objection or protest and also admitted that they issued the bill dated 24.6.2012 for Rs.25,750/- showing meter code 'N' as the reading could not be noted for that month. The complainant again not raised any objection or protest against and paid the said bill. The opposite parties admitted that they issued a bill dated 23.7.2012 for a sum of Rs.64,650/-. The opposite parties further pleaded that the true facts are that the said meter installed in the premises of the complainant was found defective as such the bill dated 23.7.2012 has been issued by them as per the average consumption of the same month of the last year i.e. for the year July, 2011 which was Rs.64,605/-. The opposite parties also explained the complainant how the bill in question was sent.
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 holding an electric connection bearing No.B13GC130010F. The opposite parties have issued the bill dated 25.5.2012 of Rs.29,070/-, bill dated 24.6.2012 of Rs.25,750/- with 'N' code and bill dated 23.7.2012 of Rs.64,650/- payable upto 7.8.2012 of 10137 units. The complainant has deposited the bill dated 25.5.2012 and 24.6.2012 with the opposite parties.
6. The complainant has disputed the abovementioned bills issued on 25.5.2012 of Rs.29,070/- and bill dated 24.6.2012 of Rs.25,750/- and bill dated 23.7.2012 for Rs.64,650/- for 10137 units, being sent on the exorbitant side, as his consumption of the bill always remained upto Rs.15,000/- and 17,000/-
The complainant has submitted that he has paid the amount of Rs.29,070/- for bill dated 25.5.2012 although it was on the exorbitant side earlier he used to pay the bills between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.17,000/- and thereafter he got another bill dated 24.6.2012 of Rs.25,750/- and the meter code was shown as 'N. He approached the opposite party No.2 for the correction of the bill but they assured the next bill would be issued correctly after adjusting the excess amount. The complainant has paid the bill on the assurance of the opposite party No.2, that they will correct his bills. Thereafter another bill dated 23.7.2012 of Rs.64,650/- was issued to the complainant for 10137 units. The complainant again requested the opposite party No.2 to correct the bill as previous bills were also not corrected by it. The opposite parties have sent the bills on the average basis without explanation. No supplementary notice was issued before charging the amount of Rs.64,650/-. The meter status in the bill has been shown as 'D'. The complainant further submitted that he is entitled to get back the excess amount deposited against the bill dated 25.5.2012 and 24.6.2012.
7. The submissions of the opposite parties are that the consumption of the complainant was not between Rs.15,000/- to Rs.17,000/-, for this they have placed on file the consumption data for the period from April, 2011 to May, 2012, according to this consumption data he was issued the bills for Rs.47,563/- in April, 2011; Rs.59,654/- in May; 2011; Rs.63,426/- in June, 2011; Rs.64,605/- in July, 2011; Rs.66,313/- in August, 2011; Rs.61,508/- in September, 2011; Rs.46,435/- in October, 2011; Rs.26,021/- in November, 2011; Rs.24,022/- in December, 2011; Rs.11,332/- in January, 2012; Rs.21,624/- in Fabruary 2012; Rs.23,269/- in March, 2012; Rs.41,158/- in April, 2012; and Rs.28,998/- in May, 2012. All the abovesaid bills were paid by the complainant without raising any protest which shows that he has been using the electricity for the units mentioned in all the abovesaid bills. The bill dated 24.5.2012 for Rs.29,070/- was issued as per the consumption of the complainant and the same was also paid by him without any protest and the bill dated 24.6.2012 for Rs.25,750/- is showing the meter code 'N' as the reading could not be noted for that month. The complainant never raised any protest against the said bill rather the same was deposited by him with the opposite parties. The said meter was found to be defective as such the bill dated 23.7.2012 was issued by the opposite parties as per the average consumption of the said month of the previous year i.e. for the year July, 2011 which was Rs.64,605/-. The opposite parties also informed the complainant about the basis on which the bill in question was issued.
8. The opposite parties have placed on file consumption data i.e. Ex.R2 which shows the bill dated July, 2011 for 10137 units for the amount of Rs.64,605/- and bill dated July, 2012 was also sent for 10137 units for the amount of Rs.64,605/- as the meter was defective. Thus the third bill dated March, 2012 was issued as the per the average of the consumed units of the previous year that is July, 2011 to the complainant. Moreover the complainant has paid that two previous bills dated 24.5.2012 and 24.6.2012 without any protest.
From the perusal of the documents and evidence placed on file it is concluded that the account of the complainant was overhauled as per the electricity supply and regulation 2007 vide Ex.R3 (As notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Regu.31 dated June 29, 2007 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette dated July 27, 2007):-
“21.4 Defective meters:-
..........
(g) Overhauling of consumer accounts:-
(ii)The accounts of a consumer will be overhauled for the period a burnt meter remained at site and for the period of direct supply. On the basis of energy consumption of the corresponding period of the previous year after calibrating for the changes in load, if any. In case the average consumption for the corresponding period of the previous year is not available then the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicated in para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the succeeding year.”
In the present case the consumption of the previous year is available hence the bill raised accordingly.
9. Therefore in view what has been discussed above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
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:- (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
05-11-2012 President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
