BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 492 of 2013
Date of Institution: 16.7.2013
Date of Decision :15.01.2016
Smt. Sawinderjit Kaur wife of Inderpal Singh, Resident of 75/1, Guru Bazar, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman/MD, The Mall, Patiala service through AEE Tunda Talab Sub Division, Amritsar
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sh.Rajinder Joshi,Advocate
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
- Present complaint has been filed by Sawinderjit Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that complainant is the beneficiary of electric connection bearing account No. C34BG68003IN installed in her jewellery repair shop. According to the complainant she has been making payment of all the electricity bills regularly. However, opposite party issued memo No. 935 dated 13.6.2013 calling upon the complainant to pay the amount of Rs. 84,115/- as half margin. Opposite party also added an amount of Rs. 15063/- in bill dated 4.7.2013 without giving any details of the said amount. The complainant approached the opposite party to rectify the aforesaid memo as well as bill , but the opposite party did not rectify the bill . Complainant has alleged that the opposite party was bound to change the defective meter of the complainant within 10 days of knowledge ; otherwise they are liable to pay penal charges @ Rs. 100/- per day, to the complainant but the opposite party did not do so. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to quash the demand made vide memo No. 935 dated 13.6.2013 for Rs. 84,115/- as half margin and an amount of Rs. 15063/- added in bill dated 4.7.2013. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that electric connection bearing account No. BG68/0031 under NRS category having sanctioned load of 9KW stands in the name of Karan Mehra . It was submitted that the audit party of the opposite party overhauled the account of the complainant vide half margin No. 228 dated 28.5.2013 and it was found that in the month of 1/2013 the meter of account No. BG 68/031 was declared “D” code at the reading of 1194 and as per ledger, in the month of 1/2013 the bill was issued as per monthly minimum charges but on verifying the record it was found that at reading 1194 the meter of the complainant was declared defective with “D” code in the month of January 2013, actually this reading 1194 was recorded in the month of 3/2011 and from that it is clear that meter is defective since the month of 3/2011, as such the account of the consumer was required to be overhauled from the month of 3/2012 to 3/2013 on the basis of load factor because in the corresponding month of 3/2011 to 1/2012 the meter of the complainant was also defective and the reading was not available. As such as per section 21.4 (G) of Electricity Supply Code 2007 due to non availability of average consumption (base) for the corresponding months of previous year, the account of the consumer is required to be overhauled as per load factor given below:-
Load Factor = Load X Days X Hours X Factor
9 X 25 X 12 X .40 = 1080 X 2 = 2160 units
Accordingly opposite party served a bill cum show cause notice upon the consumer vide Memo No. 935 dated 13.6.2013 to deposit Rs. 84115/- within 15 days. While submitting that demand raised vide Memo No. 935 dated 13.6.2013 is legal and valid. Opposite party also issued bill dated 4.7.2013 for Rs. 15063/- as SOP + Rs. 1967/- as ED + Rs. 230/- as Octroi ; total Rs. 17260/- payable by due date and Rs. 18766/- payable after due date and this bill was issued for 64 days for average 2304 units of “C” code calculated as per load factor i.e. Load x Days x Hours X Factor and there is no illegality in issuing this bill. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of memo No. 935 Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 19.7.2013 Ex.C-3, copy of sale deed Ex.C-4.
4. Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ajay Pal Singh,Asstt.Engineer (Commercial) Ex.OP1, copy of half margin No. 228 dated 28.5.2013 Ex.OP2, consumption data Ex.OP3, calculation sheet of Rs. 84115/- Ex.OP4, calculation sheet of bill dated 4.7.2013 Ex.OP5, copy of MCO 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 both 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 beneficiary of electric connection bearing account No. C34BG68003IN under NRS category with sanctioned load 9KW as he purchased this property in question from Karan Mehra . The complainant submitted that he has been making payment of all the electricity bills issued by the opposite party regularly without any default. However, the complainant received memo No. 935 dated 13.6.2013 Ex.C-2 issued by the opposite party asking the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 84115/- on the basis of half margin and the opposite party also issued bill dated 4.7.2013 Ex.C-3 demanding a sum of Rs. 15063/- in the current bill of the complainant without giving any details of the said amount, to the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party to rectify the aforesaid memo Ex.C-2 as well as bill Ex.C-3. But the opposite party did not rectify the bill . The complainant further submitted that the opposite party was bound to change the defective meter of the complainant within 10 days of knowledge ; otherwise they are liable to pay penal charges @ Rs. 100/- per day, to the complainant and the opposite party did not do so. 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 audit party of the opposite party overhauled the account of the complainant vide half margin No. 228 dated 28.5.2013 Ex.OP2. The meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO dated 6.6.2013 Ex.OP6. The meter of the complainant was declared defective with “D” code in the month of 1/2013 at the reading of 1194 and as per ledger of 1/2013 the bill was issued as per monthly minimum charges . But on verifying the record, it was found that at reading 1194 the meter of the complainant was declared defective with “D” code in the month of January 2013, actually this reading 1194 was recorded in the month of 3/2011 and from that it is clear that meter had been defective since March 2011, as such the account of the consumer was required to be overhauled from the month of 3/2012 to 3/2013 on the basis of load factor because in the corresponding month of 3/2011 to 1/2012 the meter of the complainant was also defective and the reading was not available. Resultantly as per load factor the complainant was required to be charged for 2160 units. Therefore, the complainant was required to pay amount of Rs. 84115/- as per half margin dated 28.5.2013 Ex.OP2. Resultantly memo bearing No. 935 dated 13.6.2013 Ex.C-2 was issued to the complainant to pay this amount to the opposite party within 15 days or to file objections, if any. But the complainant neither deposited this amount with the opposite party nor filed any objections. Opposite party was, therefore, justified to charge this amount from the complainant as per rules and regulations of the opposite party. Similarly bill dated 4.7.2013 for Rs. 15063/- alongwith duty, octroi etc ; total amounting to Rs. 17,260/- Ex.C-3 was issued on the basis of LDHF formula. This bill is for 64 days on average basis with “C” code because the consumption during the corresponding period of last year was not available . Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that opposite party was justified in raising the aforesaid demand from the complainant, as per rules and regulations of the opposite party, as such 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 meter of the complainant became defective in the month of 3/2011 and it was given “D” code. The meter of the complainant could not be changed due to paucity of electricity meters with the opposite party. The account of the complainant was required to be overhauled for the period from 3/2012 to 3/2013 . Resultantly this amount was overhauled by the opposite party vide half margin Ex.OP2 dated 28.5.2013 on the basis of LDHF formula because the meter of the complainant also remained defective during the corresponding months of 3/2011 to 3/2012 and a sum of Rs. 84,115/- was found payable by the complainant to the opposite party. Resultantly memo bearing No. 935 dated 13.6.2013 Ex.C-2 was issued to the complainant to pay this amount to the opposite party within 15 days or to file objections, if any. But the complainant neither paid this amount to the opposite party nor filed any objection. Opposite party was, therefore, justified in claiming this amount, from the complainant. The meter of the complainant was changed by the opposite party and the bill dated 4.7.2013 Ex.C-3 was issued to the complainant on the basis of LDHF formula with “C” code because this bill was for 64 days i.e. from 5/2013 to 7/2013. This bill was also issued on the basis of LDHF formula on average basis because the reading for the corresponding period during the last year on the meter of the complainant was also not available. Opposite party is also justified in charging this amount of Rs. 17,260/- from the complainant, as this bill dated 4.7.2013 Ex.C-3 is as per rules and regulations of the opposite party.
9. Resultantly we dispose of this complaint with the conclusion that opposite party was justified in charging the aforesaid amount of Rs. 84115/- from the complainant as per half margin dated 28.5.2013 Ex.OP2 vide memo dated 13.6.2013 Ex.C-2 on LDHF formula as well as Rs. 17,260/- from the complainant vide bill dated 4.7.2013 Ex.C-3 on average basis i.e. on LDHF formula. However, opposite party is liable to adjust this amount charged from the complainant on the basis of consumption on the meter of the complainant during the corresponding period of the succeeding year. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the orders 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.
15.01.2016 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
