Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/96/2021

Anita Dhiman - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Tejinder Singh Salana

17 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                   Complaint No. 96 of 2021

                                                                   Date of Institution: 30.09.2021

                                                                   Date of Decision:    17.08.2022

 

Anita Dhiman aged about 60 years wife of Sh. Varinder Kumar, resident of House no.583, Sector 3-B, Railway Road, Opposite PNB, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.                                                                                                                                           …………....Complainant(s)

                                                Versus

1. Punjab State Powers Corporation Ltd. The Mall Patiala, through its Chairman/director.

2. Sub Divisional Officer cum Assistant Executive Engineer Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.

3. Ex. EN, Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. MandiGobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.

   …………....Opposite Party(s)

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as amended upto-date

Quorum

Sh. Pushvinder Singh, President

Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member

 

 

Present:Sh. T.S.Salana, Counsel for Complainant.

             Sh. Sumit Gupta, Counsel for OPs

 

 

 

 

Order By

Pushvinder Singh, President

 

1.                  The present complaint has been filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘CC’) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs”) with a prayer to direct the OPs to issue the electricity bill by treating her connection as domestic instead of commercial and also to refund the excess amount so charged by the OPs since the year 2017. CC also seeks a compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @18% per annum and also claimed Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2.                  The CC alleged that the CC is the consumer of the OPs against electric connection No.K21CT230771H running at Mandi Gobindgarh in the house of the CC. The previous account number of the electric connection was 3002515133, which was a domestic connection. CC is regularly paying the consumption charges of the electricity so consumed by her without any fault or negligence and no amount is due from the CC to the OPs so far the electricity charges are concerned. In the year 2011 the CC got extended load of electric connection of her house and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.19485/-  for that purpose with the OPs.

 

3.                CC alleged that OPs changed the old meter of the CC with the digital meter and thereafter the OPs started charging consumption by treating the domestic connection of the complainant as commercial connection, which is un warranted under the provisions of law and is against the rules and regulations of Electricity Act. CC stated that the she was/is using the said electric meter for residence purpose only till date and never used the same for any commercial purpose at any time in any manner.CC remained requesting the OPs to treat the electric connection of the CC as domestic one and also to send the electric bills accordingly and also to refund the excess amount so charged by the OPs, by treating the electric connection as domestic connection since the year 2017, but the OPs did not pay any heed to the said genuine requests of the CC and remained putting off the matter by one pretext and the other.In view of the facts, enumerated above, there is gross negligence, deficiency in service, carelessness and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and due to the above said reasons the OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainant and are also bound to send the ensuing bills of the complainant by treating her electric connection as domestic connection instead of commercial connection.
4.                   Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs  and Sh. Sumit Gupta, Adv counsel for the OPs appeared and filed their written version/reply. OPs stated that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form CC is not a consumer for the purpose of consumer protection Act as present complaint is time barred and the Hon'ble Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint as there does not arise the question if any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. OPs also submitted that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and same is liable to be dismissed. OPs further submitted that the tariff for electric connection in question as NRS is running from prior to 2014 as per record of PSPCL and CC never complained about that previously. In the year 2014 CC filed application for correction of Bill and the same was corrected during that period also tariff for electric connection in question was as NRS. Now CC filed the present complaint which is time barred and liable to be dismissed. OPs denied all other allegations.
5.                CC in his evidence has furnished his affidavit in support of the complaint and reiterating the facts contained in the complaint as Ex.C-1/A and he also produced the copy of Aadhaar Card as Ex.C-1, copies of bill as Ex.C-2 and C-3, copy of letters written to OPs as Ex.C-4, Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8, postal receipts as Ex.C-5, C-6 and C-9, Electricity Bills as Ex.C-10 and C-11, payment deposit receipt  as Ex.C-12, Test Report as Ex.C-13 and C-14, Electricity Bill as Ex.C-15. On the other hand OPs produced the affidavit as Ex.OP-1, copies of letters dated  09.05.2014 and 26.05.2014 as Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-3. Copy of bill as OP-4, register entry as Ex.OP-5, Bill Ledger as Ex.OP-6 to Ex.OP-10.
6.                   We have heard the counsels for the parties and have gone through the file carefully.
7.                  This complaint has been filed by the CC for directing the OPs to issue the electricity bill by treating her connection as domestic connection instead of commercial connection and also to refund the excess amount so charged by the OPs since the year 2017 by treating the domestic connection of CC as commercial connection and to adjust the said excess amount in the future bills. CC has also claimed Rs.5,00,000/-  as compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum and also Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
8.                 So far as the first prayer of CC is concerned the same has been allowed by the OPs themselves and fresh bill has already been issued to the CC by mentioning the same as domestic connection. The copy of bill is Ex.C-15 on the file, which was issued on 04.02.2022. Even otherwise the OPs in their reply/version to the complaint did not claim the connection as commercial(NRS).
9.                 The CC has further claimed that her electricity connection was a domestic connection and earlier the bills were issued by mentioning the connection of CC as domestic(DS). In this regard, the CC has proved the copies of earlier bills as Ex.C-2 and C-3, which were issued in the year 2012. The CC has also alleged that in the year 2017 the OPs changed the old meter of CC with the digital meter and thereafter the OPs started charging the consumption by treating the domestic connection of CC as commercial connection which was on higher side. The CC made application to the S.D.O. concerned for making correction and to issue the bills on the basis of tariff of domestic connection. In this regard, the CC has proved the copies of complaints as Ex.C-4, Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 along with copies of postal receipts as Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-9. The CC has further alleged that the OPs is remained issuing bills considering the electricity connection as commercial connection but in February, 2022 issued the bills by mentioning the electricity connection as domestic(DS). We find that from the evidence produced by the CC is very much clear that electricity connection of CC was a domestic connection and the OPs themselves used to issue bills by mentioning the electricity connection as domestic connection but in the year 2017 they started issuing the bills treating the connection of CC as commercial connection and  it is not disputed that the consumption rates of commercial connection are always higher than the domestic consumption.
10.                  So, we have come to the conclusion that the claim of CC is right and the OPs should amend the record accordingly of the bills issued from the year of 2017 till the date of correction already made by the OPs by treating the electricity connection of the CC as domestic connection instead of commercial connection. The OPs should also calculate the excess amount received from the CC and adjust the same in the coming bills. The CC is also entitled for the compensation for mental and physical harassment and litigation charges. However, the CC has claimed Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest. But we find that the same is on very higher side and genuinely the CC can be compensated for by paying an amount of Rs.30,000/- for physical and mental harassment. CC has also claimed Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses which has been genuinely claimed.
11.             In view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is allowed accordingly and the OPs are directed to correct the record since the year 2017 by treating the electricity connection of CC as domestic connection instead of commercial and also directed to calculate the amount received from the CC in excess since 2017 till the date of correction already made by the OPs by treating the electricity connection of the CC as domestic connection instead of commercial connection and directed to adjust the said period excess amount in the coming bills. OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days on receipt of certified copy of this order. The copy of this order be provided to the CC and OPs free of cost. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
12.  
13.  

                                                                            

 

    (Pushvinder Singh)

                                                                                        President

 

 

 

                                                       

                                                                           (Shivani Bhargava)

   Member