Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/107

Bhupinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL Through its Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

In person

06 Nov 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                       Consumer Complaint No. :      107 of 23.07.2019

                       Date of decision                        :         06.11.2019

 

Bhupinder Singh aged about 87 years son of Late Sh. Man Singh, resident of #73 Gilco Valley Morindia Road Rupnagar Tehsil & District Rupnagar.  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Executive Engineer Sub Division Rupnagar.

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

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Bhupinder Singh complainant in person along with his counsel Sh. Mohinderpal Singh, Advocate 

Sh. K.S. Longia, Adv. counsel for O.P. along with RA Sh. Jagtar Singh  

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.       Bhupinder Singh aged about 87 years son of Late Sh. Man Singh, resident of #73 Gilco Valley Morindia Road Rupnagar Tehsil & District Rupnagar, has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to refund or adjust the excess amount of electricity bill charged by them illegally, wrongly and unfairly, to the satisfaction of the complainant; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental, physical harassment; to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

2.       Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant is a retired professor/Lecturer and is well known writer and oftenly likes to write something at his home. He had always been paying the electricity bills of the O.P. He is the only person living in his house and there is no other family member who is living along with him. So, he needs only one tube light generally and one fan in summers for his living hood and even there is no television, computer at the place of the complainant. The bill of the electricity sent by the O.P. department to the complainant oftenly comes nearby between Rs.700-1200/- per bill for two months ensures that he pays the bill on time. On 10.3.2018, the complainant was shocked when he received bill from the O.P. to the tune of Rs.6560/-, whereas he has never paid such a huge amount in the past to the O.P. because the consumption of electricity is very less and there is hardly any other source of consumption of electricity like couple of tube lights or fans, washing machine and a fridge. Thereafter, on 16.3.2018, the complainant moved an application to the SDO of PSPCL department Rupnagar regarding his concern and regarding excessive unfair electricity bill but no satisfying response was ever received by the complainant from the officials of the O.P. but the complainant being a law abiding and good citizen and unfear of getting the electricity connection disconnected by the hands of officials of O.P. Hence, this complaint.  

3.       On being put to the notice, the O.P. appeared through his counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and does not lie and is liable to be dismissed because complainant has already exhausted the remedy available before the Dispute Settlement Committee constituted by the O.P. The DSC vide its order dated 26.2.2019 allowed to overhaul the account of the complainant detailed in the corresponding paras of the reply; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. On merits, it is stated that bill dated 10.3.2018 for the sum of Rs.6250/- was issued to the complainant. As per record old reading recorded in the meter was 9689 and new reading was 10670. In this way, net consumption was 981 units and bill for the sum of Rs.6250/- was issued. In the bill an adjustment of Rs.754/- on account of SOP, Rs.46/- on account of rent, Rs.134/- on account of ED and Rs.15/- on account of Octroi was made. The refund of said amount was made because a bill for the month of 11.1.2018 was issued for the sum of Rs.1080/-., The old reading was 9689 unit and new reading was 9839 and the net consumption was 150 units and bill was accordingly issued. But in the system, reading of bill dated 10.3.2018 was from 9689 unit to 10670 unit instead of 9839 units and refund was accordingly made fully shown in the bill in dispute. The complainant represented before the Dispute Settlement Committee constituted by the defendant where a proper opportunity of being heard was provided to the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with the documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C25 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Er. Harvinder Singh Bhathal, Addl. SE Operation Division, Roper Ex.OP1 along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.       Complainant Sh. Bhupinder Singh along with his counsel Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, argued that the age of the complainant is 88 years and is residing alone in the house No. 73, Gilco Valley, Morinda, Road, Rupnagar, whereas his entire other family is abroad. He further made prayer that in summer daily use is one bulb and one fan, whereas in the winter season only one bulb is used in consumption. He has no Air Conditioner and the gieser is installed with the gas connection. Similarly, he had been paying the simple bill relating to the consumption of one or two units daily. But surprisingly on 10.3.2018, O.P. demanded Rs.6560/- towards consumption charges. On 16.3.2018, he moved an application to the O.P. qua unfair electricity bill but without any action on the part of the O.P. He further requested that the O.P. has stated that he has already deposited more than that the consumption i.e. Rs.129/-. Despite the entire proceedings, which is in the knowledge of the O.P. O.P. has demanded Rs.6560/- and prayed to allow the complaint as it amounts to deficiency in service.

7.       O.P. counsel Sh. K.S. Longia, referred to the documentary evidence relied upon by the complainant and the record relating to the complainant Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and argued by referring Ex.OP5 the decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee dated 26.2.2019. He made the prayer that once the request of the complainant is declined by the dispute settlement committee then consumer is not entitled to file the present complaint. Lastly by referring to the documentary evidence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8.       Complainant is enjoying the electric connection at his residential house and is residing in District Rupnagar. O.P. is also having office situated in this District and admitted the release of the connection as well as the documents placed on file between the parties qua the dispute in hand. Hence it is held that this forum has territorial jurisdiction and the complaint is maintainable.

9.       Coming to the real controversy, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service or not?. It is the specific plea of the complainant that he is residing alone and he 88 years old. He uses only one bulb and one fan in the summer season and only one bulb in the winter season. Then relying upon the documentary evidence Ex.C2 to Ex.C25 are the documents issued by the O.P. Complainant made request qua the excess charges, these documents stands almost admitted by the OP.

10.     O.P. relied upon Ex.OP5 i.e. order of the Dispute Settlement Committee vide which the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

          whfNzr d"okB ygseko dk e/; x'fynk frnk ns/ skik ygs th u?Ae ehsh rJh, fi; s'A ikgdk j? fe whNo izg BjhA j'fJnk, ygseko dh ygs fJeZmh j'Jh ikgdh j?. fJ; bJh ew/Nh B/ c?;bk ehsk fe ygseko dh fwsh 16H01H2017 s'A 10H03H2018 sZe nkJh ygs B{z pokpo tzv e/ yksk ;'X fdZsk ikt/.

           Further the dispute committee has given the case history also. After reading out the above decision complainant referred para No.7 of the reply filed by the O.P.s in which the O.P. has taken the plea qua the reading 9689 and 10670 i.e. 981 units and the bill of Rs.6560/-. Further in the end of this Para it is concluded that vide bill dated 9.5.2019, O.P. refunded Rs.129/- after overhauling the account of the complainant.

11.  Complainant made prayer that the decision of the Settlement Committee is produced by the O.P. on the file while leading the evidence whereas it never supplied its copy to the complainant. Similarly, plea is taken qua the decision of Rs.120/- for checking the meter. O.P. admitted that meter was checked on the request of the complainant and till today has not supplied the report qua the meter checking whether the meter is OK or is faulty. When the complainant deposited the fee then he is entitled to the final report of the lab.

12. O.P. counsel Sh. K.S. Longia, argued that when the matter was settled by the Dispute Settlement Committee then the jurisdiction of this forum is barred by law. In support of the said legal proposition he has relied upon the law laid down by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, in case titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Gopala Steel Rolling Mills, in appeal No.998 of 2000. In the said authority, the law is laid down that when the complainant challenged the electricity bill before the Dispute Settlement Committee and not filing appeal against the said order as provided under Regulation 144 of the Sales Regulations then the jurisdiction of the forum is barred and the order was set aside.

13.  The forum has gone through the authority and appreciated the arguments and has come to the conclusion that no doubt the matter was referred to the Dispute Settlement Committee whose decision dated 26.2.2019 and has placed on file its copy by the O.P. during evidence, as not intimated to the complainant at any stage. In this way, the complainant was not aware of the said order of the Dispute Settlement Committee. Moreover, the opinion observed by the committee is ambiguous and mentioned that record of the consumer was probed and checked the consumption and found that there is no evidence of meter jumping and it appears that consumption of consumer may be collective i.e. why the committee has taken the decision that w.e.f. 16.1.2017 to 10.3.2018 the monthly arrears at the consumption be added and be charged from the consumer vide O.Ps. Further OP6 is the report of the lab vide which meter of the complainant was checked when the meter was in working condition and the consumption is accurate which is evident from the report itself then why the penalty of Rs.6560/- is to be charged/recovered from the complainant by the O.P is beyond explanation. There is nothing on record by the O.P. when the working of the meter installed at the house of the complainant is OK and complainant had been paying the regular consumption charges then the forum has come to the opinion that OP fails in proving the basis on what basis it has demanded Rs.6560/- vide bill dated 10.3.2018. Complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.P. whereas OP has failed in satisfying the complainant version as well as on what ground has it demanded the such amount.

14.  In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed and O.P. is held not entitled to recover Rs.6560/- from the complainant and only entitled to recover the consumption charges as per the meter reading with cost of Rs.5000/-.

15.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.         

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.06.11.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER