Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/35

Beena Kumari Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

02 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :           35 of 2019

Date of Institution :     05.02.2019

Date of Decision :       02.12.2019

Beena Kumari Bansal aged about 70 years w/o Prem Lal r/o  Old Cantt Road, Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. District Faridkot.                                   

        .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

              Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Mohan Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.   

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab

cc no.-35 of 2019

State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to correct the bills and to withdraw the demand of Rs.1,23,240/- raised vide bill dated 21.01.2019 and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. 3000381798 old and 3004955607 new running in his premises. It is submitted that complainant purchased his house from Surinder Kumar where connection is installed and after purchase, he got transferred the said connection on his own name and a/c no.3004955607 is now running in his premises and since then, he has been paying all the bills as and when received and nothing is due towards him on account of consumption charges. It is submitted that complainant received a bill dated 21.07.2018 for Rs.33,560/- for the period from 17.05.2018 to 21.07.2018 for 1296 units, which was duly paid by complainant vide receipt dated 6.08.2018. He again received bill dated 19.09.2018 for Rs.88,050/- for the period from 17.05.2018 to 19.09.2018 for 11328 units, which was very excessive. On receiving the complainant approached OPs and requested them to correct the bill as he has already paid for the period from 17.05.2018 to 21.07.2018, but they have wrongly added said period bill in bill dated 19.09.2018. On this OPs agreed and assured to correct the said bill and thereafter, OP-2 changed the meter of complainant but his old meter was

cc no.-35 of 2019

never sealed in the presence of complainant or his authorized representative. After that, he again received bill dated 24.11.2018 for Rs.1,09,770/- for 1142 units and in that bill arrears of previous bill were included. Complainant again approached OPs and requested them to correct the said bill but they did not do anything needful, rather again sent bill dated 21.01.2019 for Rs.1,23,240/- for 1175 units and this bill also contained arrears of previous bills. Complainant made several requests to OPs to correct the bills and to withdraw the impugned amount, but all in vain. All this act and conduct of Ops in not correcting his bill has caused huge inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to set aside the demand of Rs.1,23,240/- raised vide bill dt 21.01.2019 and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 6.02.2019, 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 wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that correct bill was

 

cc no.-35 of 2019

issued to complainant and there is no need to correct the same. It is admitted that bill dated 24.07.2018 for the period for 17.05.2018 to 21.07.2018 for 1296 units for Rs.33,880/-was  issued and it contained arrears of Rs.23,078/-. Thereafter, bill dated 19.09.2018 for the period for 17.05.2018 to 19.09.2018 for 13328 units for Rs.99,209/-was  issued and it contained arrears, tariff difference and charges less charged in previous month. After that bill dated 16.10.2018 for the period for 19.09.2018 to 5.10.2018 for 1158 units for Rs.99,850/-was issued and it contained arrears of Rs.89,735/-. Complainant challenged the meter on 23.10.2018 by depositing the meter challenge fees and his meter was removed vide MCO dt23.10.2018 and his meter was sent to ME Lab Moga, where after checking it was found that meter of complainant was slow by 33.74% and DDL report was also taken. Notice no.259 dated 26.10.2018 for Rs.40,993/-was sent to him on 5.12.2018. Bill dated 24.11.2018 for 652 units of new meter and 490 of old removed meter for Rs.9753/-alongwith arrears of Rs.1,01,619/-was issued to him. next bill dated 21.01.2019 for Rs.1,23,910/-was issued to complainant and it contained arrears of previous bill for Rs.1,14,768/-.All bills are correctly issued to him as per consumption charges. Complainant has levelled false allegations against them and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. 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.

cc no.-35 of 2019

5                                     Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 10 and closed the same.

6                                      In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-12 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                    We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                              From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that he received a bill dated 21.07.2018 for Rs.33,560/- for the period from 17.05.2018 to 21.07.2018 for 1296 units, which he paid against proper receipt. He again received bill dated 19.09.2018 for Rs.88,050/- for the period from 17.05.2018 to 19.09.2018 for 11328 units, which was very excessive. It is brought before the Forum that complainant had already paid consumption charges for the period from 17.05.2018 to 21.07.2018, but they have wrongly added said period bill in bill dated 19.09.2018. this thing was brought in the notice of OPs and they assured to correct the same, but did not do anything. Thereafter, complainant

cc no.-35 of 2019

again received bill dated 24.11.2018 for Rs.1,09,770/-, in which arrears of previous bill were included. Complainant made several requests to OPs to issue correct bill but nothing fruitful was done and then, OPs issued him bill dt 21.01.2019 for Rs.1,23,240/-which contained arrears of previous bills. Complainant has already paid the consumption charges and nothing on account of consumption charges is due towards him on account of arrears of previous bills, but now, this bill dated 21.01.2019 for Rs.1,23,240/-which contains arrears, which is very excessive. This amount is highly excessive and despite repeated requests, OPs did not correct the bill and have failed to redress his grievance. He has prayed for directions to OPs to withdraw the demand for arrears raised vide bills dated 21.01.2019. In reply, plea taken by OPs is that complaint is not their consumer and further argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part as he has levelled false and incorrect allegations. OPs admitted that bill dated 24.07.2018 for the period for 17.05.2018 to 21.07.2018 for 1296 units for Rs.33,880/-was  issued and it contained arrears of Rs.23,078/-. Thereafter, bill dated 19.09.2018 for the period for 17.05.2018 to 19.09.2018 for 11328 units for Rs.99,209/-was  issued and it also contained arrears, tariff difference and charges less charged in previous month. Thereafter, bill dated 16.10.2018 for the period for 19.09.2018 to 5.10.2018 for 1158 units for Rs.99,850/-was issued and it contained arrears of Rs.89,735/-. Complainant challenged the meter and his meter was removed and sent to ME Lab Moga, where after checking it was

cc no.-35 of 2019

found that meter of complainant was slow by 33.74% and DDL report was also taken. Notice no.259 dated 26.10.2018 for Rs.40,993/-was sent to him on 5.12.2018. Bill dated 24.11.2018 for 652 units of new meter and 490 of old removed meter for Rs.9753/-alongwith arrears of Rs.1,01,619/-was issued to him. Bill dated 21.01.2019 for Rs.1,23,910/-was issued to complainant and it contained arrears of previous bill for Rs.1,14,768/-.All bills are correctly issued to him as per consumption charges.  As per OPs arrear amount is due towards complainant which he is liable to pay on account of consumption charges and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

9                                   From above discussion and in the light of documents placed on record, it is observed that through Ex C-6 copy of receipt dt 6.08.2018, it is proved that complainant has already paid Rs.33,560/- to OPs against bill dated 21.07.2019 which was for the period from 17.05.2018 to 21.07.2018, but OPs have again charged for consumption for the period from 17.05.2018 to 21.07.2018 onwards in subsequent bill dated 19.09.2018, for which they have given no plausible reason for adding this amount.

10                                    Further plea taken by Ops that complainant is not their consumer has no legs to stand upon in the light of bill Ex C-2 that clearly proves the fact that meter in question is installed in the name of complainant and bills are being issued by them in his name in respect

cc no.-35 of 2019

of meter installed at his premises. Thus, there is no doubt that complainant is the consumer of OPs. His pleadings are further proved in the light of document Ex C-7 it is clear that complainant purchased his house from one Surinder Kumar. Ex C-6 is copy of receipt that proves the fact that he paid Rs.33,560/-to OPs against receipt no.121567362 on 6.08.2018 and this amount was paid against bill dated 21.07.2019 which was for the period from 17.05.2018 to 21.07.2018. From the bills Ex C-2 to Ex C-5 it is clear that average consumption of connection of complainant is not more than 1200 units but the consumption shown by OPs in bill dated 19.09.2018 for the period from 17.05.2018 to 19.09.2018 for 11328 units is highly excessive and unlawful. It is admitted and there is no doubt that vide receipt dated 6.08.2018 complainant cleared the consumption charges for the period from 17.05.2018 to 21.07.2018, but bill dated 19.09.2018 further contains the charges for the bill of previous period for which he has already paid the consumption charges. Complainant has brought our attention towards documents Ex C-3 and Ex C-6 and Ex C-8 to Ex C-10 which are copies of bills showing the arrears though nothing is pending towards complainant against consumption charges. Ld counsel for complainant pleaded before the Forum that amount in question is raised for consumption of 11,328 units, for the period from 17.05.2018 to 19.09.2018, which is very excessive and is quite illegal. Amount of Rs.1,23,240/- raised by Ops vide bill dated 21.01.2019 on account of arrears is inappropriate and does not seem to be correct. Average

cc no.-35 of 2019

consumption of the complainant appears to be within 1000-1200, but consumption of 11,328 units exceeds the maximum limit. It seems that meter in question was not recording correct consumption. As per the rules and regulations if there is any defect in the electric meter and not recording consumption than the consumption shall be charged on the basis of average of last year. The relevant regulations of PSPCL given in section 21.04 (g) (ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 vide notification no. PSERC /Secy /Regu. 31 dated June, 29, 2007 are reproduced as hereunder:

 “The account of a consumer will be overhauled for the period a defective 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 previous year is not available then, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicted in para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous/succeeding year.

11                                    In the instant case, the average consumption for the corresponding period of the previous years must be available with the Ops, so in view of aforementioned section 21.4 (g) ( ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, the consumer will be

cc no.-35 of 2019

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 previous year.

12                                  In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and the demand raised by Ops from complainant vide bill dated 19.09.2018 for 11328 units, is set aside and quashed. However, the Ops are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period by overhauling his account on the basis of average consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year. OPs are directed to adjust the amount if any paid by the complainant out of bill dated 19.09.2018 and are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.40,000/-deposited by complainant in compliance of the order of this Forum in subsequent bills. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 2.12.2019

 

                                        (Param Pal Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

            Member                                   President