Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/117

Baljit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

12 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No :       117

Date of Institution : 5.09.2014

Date of Decision :   12.05.2015

 

Baljit Kaur aged about 50 years w/o Sh Nirmal Singh r/o Bholluwala Road, Near Kali Mata Mandir, Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) Sub Urban Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Faridkot.

   ...(Opposite Parties)Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

                Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

 (A K Mehta, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/OPs for issuing excessive bills pertaining to a/c no. SN 14/1087 in the month of 05/2014 for Rs 14,210/-, which includes the amount of previous months bills, which were not received by complainant and the bill issued in 07/2014 for Rs 15,470/- and for seeking directions to Ops to correct the bills and to withdraw the excessive and illegal bills and to restore the electric supply to the connection of complainant and has also prayed for directing Ops to pay Rs 50,000/-as compensation for harassment and metal agony suffered by complainant and Rs 5000/-as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having a domestic electric connection bearing no. SN 14/1087 running in her name and her connection falls under EWS category of domestic supply under which 200 units per month are free supply; that complainant received bill dt 13.05.2014 for Rs 14,210/-, which includes the amount of previous month, but in the previous months, complainant did not receive the bill as consumption was less than 400 units upto which, electric supply is free to the complainant and after receiving the same, complainant visited the office of OP-2 and requested to supply the detail of the bills relating to the amount demanded in the bill as complainant did not receive the previous month bill, but OP-2 failed to supply any bill or any other detail about the amount demanded in the bill and assured the complainant that bill would be corrected and correct bill would be sent in the next month; that complainant again received the bill dt 15.07.2014 for Rs 15,470/-, which included balance of previous month and on receiving the same, complainant again visited the office of OP-2 and requested to correct the bill as consumption was less than 400 units, but OP-2 refused to correct the bill and failed to give any detail and also threatened the complainant to disconnect her electric connection if she fails to pay the total amount of bill, which is deficiency in service on the part of Ops; that a week ago, employees of OP-2 visited the house of complainant and illegally disconnected her electric connection and due to non availability of electric supply, complainant is suffering badly. Complainant visited the office of Ops and made many requests to restore power supply to her connection but OP-2 flatly refused to restore the supply to her meter and did not correct the bill; that this act and conduct of Ops has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant for which she has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay compensation to the tune of Rs 50,000/-for causing harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 10.09.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                   On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that Ops have constituted various Disputes Settlement committees/Forum to settle disputes between the parties, but complainant had not put her case before said committees and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and reiterated that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. It is asserted that bill was sent to complainant and she was called upon to deposit the amount; that bill dt 26.11.2013 for 105 units for Rs 1890/- was sent to complainant; that the old reading was 515 and the new reading was 620 units and therefore, bill for 105 units was sent and complainant deposited the amount on 11.12.2013 and thereafter bill dt 26.01.2014 was issued for 2170 units; that the old reading was 620 units and the new reading was 2790 units and this bill for 13,180/-was sent for 2170 units and bill dt 21.03.2014 was for 115 units; that old reading was 2790 and new reading was 2905 units and bill for Rs 14,320/-was sent to complainant as complainant did not pay the previous bill and thereafter, bill dt 13.05.2014 was for Rs 14,190/-for 236 units as old reading was 2905 and new reading was 3141 units; that complainant had not paid the previous bill; that bill dt 15.07.2014 was for 235 units; that old reading was 3141 units and the new reading was 3466 units and bill was for a sum of Rs 15,470/- and this bill included the unpaid amount of previous bills; that status of the meter was OK and the bills have been issued as per consumption after giving due relaxations as per entitlement of complainant; that complainant had not deposited the bill dt 26.01.2014 for a sum of Rs 13,180/-, which was charged in subsequent bills and moreover, complainant knew the amount on account of consumption; that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and closed the same.

6                                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Er Mandeep Singh SDO Ex.OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-6 and closed the evidence.

7                                            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on file.

8                                             Ld Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant falls under economically weeker section and as such, she has been given relaxation of 200 units per month. He contended that complainant earns her livelihood by working as maid in the houses and have electric connection of nominal load. He contended that complainant all of a sudden received a bill on 13.05.2014 for Rs 14,210/-, which is on the face of it, appears to be a wrong bill as the complainant would not have consumed this much energy as she falls under economically weaker section class and it shows that the bill has been prepared wrongly. He further contended that previously the complainant received a bill for nominal amount and there was a big variation in the consumption when complainant received bill in May/2014 and in this eventuality, OPs were duty bound to verify this variation which is even provided in Regulation 102.7 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 2010 but the Ops failed to perform their duty as this variation was not investigated by testing the meter. He further contended that as the complainant was unable to pay the bill therefore, the bill for 2170 units was not paid by complainant and consequently, meter of the complainant was removed and her electricity connection was disconnected. Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complaint is required to be allowed and the electricity bills for Rs 14,210/- and Rs 15,470/- issued in May and July/2014 are liable to be struck down and Ops be directed to withdraw these illegal bills and to restore the electric connection of the complainant and Ops be burdened with compensation and litigation expenses as mentioned in the complaint.

9.                                                The ld counsel for Ops contended that electricity bills sent to the complainant are legal and are in accordance with the consumption recorded in the meter. He further contended that initially in November/2013, complainant consumed 105 units and the bill for Rs 1890/- was issued to the complainant, which was paid. He further contended that complainant was issued the next bill on 26.01.2014 for consumption of 2170 units as is evident from the ledger Ex OP-3 and accordingly, complainant was issued bill for Rs 13,180/- after giving statutory relaxation. He contended that the complainant has not challenged this bill and as the complainant has not paid this bill, the amount of this bill was added in the subsequent bill issued to the complainant. He contended that ledger Ex OP-4 shows that complainant consumed 115 units in March/2014 and after giving relaxation, complainant was issued bill for Rs 14,320/- including previous non paid bill and complainant has also not paid this bill and the ledger Ex OP-5 shows that complainant consumed 236 units for the next period and bill dt 13.05.2014 was issued for 14,190/- including previous unpaid bill. He contended that complainant again did not pay this bill and also consumed 325 units for the next period and bill for Rs.15,470/- was issued to the complainant on 15.07.2014 after giving relaxation and as such, bills have not been issued illegally, rather bills have been issued legally in accordance with the consumption and as the complainant had not paid the bills, therefore, the amount was included in succeeding bills and as such, complaint is false and is liable to be dismissed because complainant has not proved on file that due to faulty meter, the bills have been wrongly issued for more amount.

10                                    After going through the record of the case and the evidence brought on the file by the parties, this Forum does not find force in the contentions of the ld counsel for complainant that bills for Rs 14,210/- for May/2014 and for Rs 15,470/- for July/2014 have been wrongly issued and requires to be struck down or withdrawn by the Ops. The complainant has only tendered her affidavit reiterating the allegations of the complainant and proved bills dated 15.07.2014 Ex C-2 for Rs 15,470/- and Ex C-3 dt 13.05.2014 for Rs 14,210/- and also proved her supplementary affidavit Ex C-4 and closed the evidence. As such, except producing her affidavit and bill in question, no other evidence has been led by the complainant to show that OPs have issued wrong bills. Otherwise on the contrary, the Ops have proved the ledger showing the month wise consumption and issuance of bills which remains unpaid by the complainant. OP have proved ledger Ex OP-2 which shows that complainant was issued bill on 26.11.2013 for 105 units and bill for Rs 1890 was issued which stands paid by the complainant. Ops have also proved ledger Ex OP-3 which shows that complainant was issued bill on 26.01.2014 for 2170 units and bill for Rs 13,180/- was issued to the complainant but the complainant failed to pay this bill and this bill was also not challenged by the complainant and as this bill was not paid by the complainant so, the amount of this bill was carried forward to the subsequent bills as this bill was not challenged by the complainant. Therefore, subsequent bills cannot be said to have been issued wrongly as subsequent bills include the unpaid amount of electricity bills issued vide ledger Ex OP-3. Ledger Ex OP-4 shows that complainant was issued bill on 21.03.2014 for 115 units and after giving relaxation, bill for Rs 14,320/- was issued on 21.03.2014, which also included the amount of previous unpaid bills. Ledger Ex.OP-5 shows that complainant was issued bill on 13.05.2014 for consumption of 236 units and issued bill for Rs 14,190/- which includes the amount  of  previous  non  paid  bill  and  as  such,      this  bill  cannot  be declared as illegal bill as complainant has not paid the previous bill and the amount of the previous bill has been included in this bill. Likewise, complainant was issued bill on 15.07.2014 for consumption of 325 units and bill for Rs 15,470/- was issued which includes amount of previous non paid bill and as such, this bill can also not to be declared illegal bill as complainant has not paid previous bill and the amount of said bill has been included in the bill dated 15.07.2014. Ld Counsel for Ops contended that the bill for 2170 units is for December and January, which is the winter period and the bills have been issued in accordance with the reading of the meter and this bill has not been challenged by the complainant and amount of this bill and subsequent bills was included in the bills for the month of May/2014 and July/2014. Moreover, even the complainant has not made any representation to the Ops for investigation of any variation in the power consumption nor any request was made to the Ops for testing of the meter nor any fee for test of the meter was deposited by the complainant and complainant has also not paid the electricity consumption charges for number of bills  and  therefore, Ops disconnected the electric connection of the complainant. As such, complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in  service  on  the  part  of  Ops  nor  has  led  any  evidence  to   show that the bills have been wrongly issued or prepared by Ops. Therefore, complainant has failed to prove her case on the file.

    11                                                    In the light of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 12.05.2015

                   Member                   Member                President                    (Parampal Kaur)                 (P Singla)            (A K Mehta)