Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/15

Bhulla Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Smt Puja Puri

17 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/15 of 12.1.2015

                                      Decided on:         17.6.2015

 

 

Bhulla Singh son  of Sh.Assa Singh, village Alipur Ariyyan Tehsil and District Patiala – 99146-70921.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

 

                                      Versus

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman-cum-C.M.D.,Head Office, The Mall Road, Patiala.
2. The S.D.O./Commercial (West),PSPCL, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………….Ops

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

 

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member   

 

                                     

Present:

For the complainant:    Smt.Puja Puri, Advocate

For Ops:                        Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj,Advocate 

 

         

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he is a consumer of the electricity connection bearing a/c no.3000023277, having a sanctioned load of 12KW, installed in a shop and is a NRS connection, which was released in the year 2011.The complainant is using the said connection for earning his livelihood, in his village Alipur Ariyyan,Tehsil, Patiala. He is a poor person and has got no other source of income.
2. Since from the date of the installation of the connection, the Ops have been harassing the complainant. He used to deposit the charges of the electricity as per the demand raised by Op no.2 through the electricity bills. Op no.2 vide bill dated 19.3.2014, raised the demand of Rs.70,360/- towards current electricity charges and the complainant immediately visited the office of Op no.2 and asked for the reasons for the inflated demand. Op no.2 advised the complainant that he may deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- and the remaining amount will be  deleted. Accordingly, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- vide cheque No.280204 dated 19.3.2014 and thereafter he deposited a sum of Rs.5900/- on 22.5.2014 and Rs.4400/- on 22.7.2014.
3. Op no.2 vide bill dated 28.11.2014, raised the demand of Rs.3,80,400/- showing the actual consumption of 277 units and the charges thereof as Rs.4827/- as SOP, Rs.238/- as ED and Rs.28/- as Octroi, in all Rs.5093/- for that sake. The remaining amount was shown as arrears of the previous year and of the current year. No amount in respect of any arrears of the previous year or of the current year i.e. the year,2014 was outstanding against the complainant.
4. On receipt of the said bill dated 28.11.2014, the complainant met the concerned official, in the office of Op no.2 and asked for the reasons for the huge demand of the arrears. He also filed an application in this regard, in the office of Op no.2 on 17.12.2014 but Op no.2 failed to give any reply.
5. The complainant has challenged the demand raised vide bill dated 28.11.2014 to be illegal, null and void , without jurisdiction etc and that the same is liable to be quashed, interalia, on the grounds that the Ops have not disclosed the period of the demand and no detail of the arrears has been disclosed; that the meter of the complainant was OK and the Ops had not given any notice with regard to the meter being defective. The meter installed at the premises of the complainant is the same when the bill dated 19.3.2014 for Rs.70,300/- was issued; that in case the meter of the complainant was defective, the same was required to be got checked from the ME Lab but the Ops have not got the same done and they have straightway raised the demand through the impugned bill; that no notice was issued to the complainant nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded before raising the demand; that the Ops failed to reply his application dated 17.12.2014; that no recovery of the arrears could be raised for a period of more than two years and that the Ops have not continuously shown the arrears in the bills issued to him.
6. It is further averred that the Ops threatened to disconnect the supply to the connection in case the amount of the impugned bill was not deposited. He was ready and willing to deposit current electricity charges. The complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for quashing the demand raised vide bill dated 28.11.2014 for Rs.3,80,400/-, the same being illegal, null and void etc. and to award him the compensation in a sum of Rs.1lac on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the Ops.
7. On notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia  , that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint against the Ops and he had brought this complaint with a malafide intention to avoid the payment of the outstanding electricity bills and that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts in that he earlier brought a suit for permanent injunction i.e. Civil suit No.207 dated 11.5.2012,  before the court of Civil Judge, Jr.Division, Patiala for restraining the –defendands (Ops) from recovering the amount of the bill No.127 dated 10.9.2011 to the tune of Rs.164364/- or Rs.151190/- and the said suit of  the complainant was dismissed on 3.8.2013 under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC. The complainant has not filed any appeal against the said order dated 3.8.2013 and therefore, the same has become final. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is not denied by the Ops that the complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection bearing a/c No.3000027277 , old number being P18FA152904L. It is further stated by the Ops that electricity bill for the period 9/2011 was issued for Rs.1,15,190/-. Since the reading of the meter could not be obtained by the concerned Meter Reader for the period 10.9.2011 to 19.11.2011 and therefore, the bill was issued with ‘N’ code on average basis for Rs.1,43,025/- for the said period. The complainant failed to challenge the meter nor filed any application or deposited any meter challenge fee but he brought the civil suit, in respect of the bill dated 9/2011 for Rs.1,52,190/- before the civil court, which was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC.The complainant has not paid the electricity bills since 9/2011 under one or the other pretext. An amount of Rs.3,80.590/- was outstanding against the complainant as on 5.12.2014 as per the data of the outstanding amount. It is admitted by the Ops that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/-and Rs.4400/- towards part payment as averred in the complaint but the alleged deposit of Rs.5900/- made on 22.5.2015 is not incorporated in the record of the Ops. They are ready to reconcile the deposit in the account of the complainant subject to the production of the receipt regarding the same by the complainant.
8. It is further the plea taken up by the Ops that the complainant was given the personal hearing by AEE West Commercial, Sub Division, PSPCL, Patiala and  he was advised to deposit atleast 50%  of the outstanding amount and the remainder could be deposited in three equal installments and that the PSPCL was ready to reconcile his account on his producing the receipts but thereafter the complainant failed to turn up and even failed to deposit 50%  of the outstanding amount and rather brought this complaint. It is denied by the Ops that the electricity bill dated 19.3.2014 was issued for Rs.70,360/-The outstanding amount is Rs.3,61,073/-.There may be some error in the system because of which migratory  data of the outstanding amount was not picked up by the computer while generating the electricity bill dated 19.3.2014.There may be some time mismatch in the electricity bills generated by the computer and the data maintained in the office, because  of certain technical problems being faced due to which migratory data is not up dated/taken into account while generating computerized bills by the system though every effort is made by the Ops to initiate correct measures in this regard.
9. It is further averred by the Ops that the bill dated 28.11.2014 for Rs.3,80,400/-was issued correctly. The application dated 17.12.2014 is not found from the record of the Ops but he was given the personal hearing by the AEE West Commercial, Sub Division and he was advised to make the payment but he failed to make the same. The electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected on 17.7.2015 on account of non payment of electricity bills. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
10. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex. CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C11 and the complainant closed the evidence.
11. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Er.J.K.Jindal, AEE,West Commercial, Sub-Division, PSPCL, Patiala, Ex.OPB, the sworn affidavit of Er.Sanjay Mittal, the then Sr.Xen Enforcement now posted as Addl.SE/Sales office of EIC/ commercial PSPCL, Patiala, Ex.OPC, the sworn affidavit of Er.Harpal Singh,JE ME Sub Division, PSPCL, alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP23 and closed the evidence.
12. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
13. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 28.11.2014 for Rs.3,89,400/-( wrongly recorded instead of 20.11.2014), as would appear from Ex.C1 and Ex.OP5, the photo copy and computerized copy of the same respectively for the period 19.9.2014 to 20.11.2014, issued by Op no.2 for the consumption of 277 KWH, showing the SOP as Rs.4027/-, ED Rs.238/- and Octroi as Rs.28/- including arrears of the current year as SOP: Rs.15786/-, ED: Rs.1428/- and Octroi: Rs.166/- and arrears of the previous year as ED: Rs.3,14,935m ED: Rs.29665/- and Octroi: Rs.5377/-An adjustment of Rs.622/- has also been shown. Provisional adjustment has also been shown as SOP: Rs.1678, ED: Rs.176/- and Octroi: Rs.20/-. Total bill was issued for Rs.3,80,400/- with late payment charges of Rs.239/-.
14. It is alleged by the complainant that on receipt of the said bill, he had approached  the office of Op no.2 as no detail of the arrears was given by the Ops, It is also the plea taken up by the complainant that the meter of the complainant was OK. No notice was given by the Ops to the complainant that his meter had become defective. The Ops had not issued any notice before raising the demand.
15. On the other hand, it is the plea taken up by the Ops that the NRS electricity connection bearing a/c No.3000023277(old No.P18FA152904L) was installed  in the premises of the complainant on 28.6.2011 and the electricity bill for 9/2011 was issued for Rs.1,51,190/-.It is also the plea taken up by the Ops that the reading of the meter for the period 10.9.2011 to 19.11.2011 could not be obtained by the Meter Reader and therefore, the bill for the said period was issued with ‘N’ code on average basis for Rs.1,43,025/-.The complainant has not challenged the meter having moved an application or having deposited the meter challenge fee and rather he brought  the civil suit having challenged the bill for the period 09/2011 for Rs.1,51,190/- before the civil court, which was dismissed under Order 9 rule 8CPC on 3.8.2013 and the complainant has not preferred any appeal against the same. An amount of Rs.3,80,590/- was outstanding against the complainant as on 5.12.2014.It is admitted by the Ops that a sum of Rs.10,000/- as also Rs.4400/- were deposited by the complainant towards part payment but no amount of Rs.5900/- appears to have been deposited by the complainant on 22.5.2014 nor any record in this regard is produced. The Ops are ready to reconcile the said amount on producing the receipt.
16. The Ops produced Ex.OP21, the consumption data, in respect of a/c No.3000027277 ( old No.P18FA1529041) for the period 26.6.2011 to 20.11.2014. The bill for the period 26.6.2011to 10.9.2011 was issued for 23341 units for Rs.1,51,190/-   including the surcharge of Rs.174/-, for Rs.164364/-.The complainant has not challenged the said bill. The complainant has taken up the plea that he had received the bill dated 19.3.2014 for Rs.70360/- but no such bill or copy thereof is produced on file by the complainant. In Ex.OP21, the Ops have shown the consumption of 22074 units for the period 10.9.2011 to 19.11.2011 and issued the bill for Rs.3,19,853/- including the surcharge as also the arrears of Rs.164364/- for the previous period.

            Here, it may be noted that the Ops have taken up the plea that the reading for the period 10.9.2011to 19.11.2011 could not be obtained by the Meter Reader and therefore, the bill was issued for ‘N’ code on average basis. It was clearly stated at bar by Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the Ops that the Ops are ready to revise the bill for the period 10.9.2011 to 19.11.2011 as per the order of the Forum. Ex.OP19 is the copy of the ledger bill for the period 10.9.2011 to 19.11.2011 , in which the meter status has been shown with ‘N’ code in which the old reading has been shown as 23570 and the new reading has been shown as 22079, which admittedly was issued on average basis.

17. The complainant has not produced any receipts regarding the deposit of the amount of the bills issued to him as per the consumption data Ex.OP21, except the amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.4400/- to have been deposited by him, a fact admitted by the Ops and as shown with the help of Ex.C3,acknowledgment regarding the payment of cheque No.280204 dated 19.3.2014, in respect of a/c 3000023277 and Ex.C4 , the receipt regarding the payment of Rs.4440/- made in respect of aforesaid account on 22.7.2014. The receipt Ex.C5 dated 3.5.2013 for Rs.4147/- pertains to a/c no.3000022738 and not to the account No.3000023277.Therefore, it was for the complainant to have challenged the accuracy of the bill dated 20.11.2014 Ex.C1/OP5 by way of producing the record regarding the payments , if any, made by him, in respect of the bills as shown in the consumption data Ex.OP21. Here, it may be noted that as per the consumption data/statement of account, Ex.OP21, a payment of Rs.12690/- is also shown to have been made by the complainant on 12.5.2012, in respect of which the complainant has produced the bill dated 7.5.2012, on which also a payment of Rs.12690/- is shown to have been acknowledged  by some official in the office of Op no.2.The other two payments of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.4440/- to have been made by the complainant on 19.3.2014 and 22.7.2014 have also been acknowledged in the column meant for the payment made in Ex.OP21.
18. The Ops have also produced in evidence Ex.OP18,, copy of the ledger bill for the period 28.6.2011 to 10.9.2011 showing the bill to have been issued for Rs.164364/- as reflected in the consumption data,Ex.OP21. Then the Ops have produced Ex.OP19, the copy of the ledger bill  for the period 10.9.2011 to 10.11.2011, issued for Rs.3,19,853/- as shown in the chart,Ex.OP21. The Ops have produced the subsequent bills Exs.OP17 for the period 19.11.2011 to 2.3.2012, OP15 for the period 2.3.2012 to 8.11.2013,OP14 , for the period 8.11.2013 to 9.1.2014, OP13, for the period 9.1.2014 to 12.3.2014, OP12, for the period 12.3.2014 to 17.5.2014, OP11 for the period 17.5.2014 to 16.7.2014, OP10 for the period 16.7.2014 to 19.9.2014, OP9 for the period 19.9.2014 to 14.10.2014 and OP8 for the period 19.9.2014 to 20.11.2014 and in all the bills, arrears of the current financial year and previous financial year have been shown continuously and the complainant has not been able to show the payment of any of the bills thereof. Consequently, it would appear that the demand raised by the Ops vide the impugned bill,Ex.C1 dated 20.11.2014 appears to be based on the actual consumption except that in the bill for the period 10.9.2011 to 19.11.2011 , the same was issued on average basis because of Meter Reader having not been able to take the reading.
19. Here, it is also important to note that both the complainant and the Ops have not approached the Forum with clean hands , in as much as the complainant has concealed the factum that he had deposited the Meter Challenge Fee although he produced in evidence Ex.C6, the copy of receipt dated 19.9.2011 for the deposit of Rs.450/-towards meter challenge and similarly, the Ops failed to disclose in the written version that the complainant had challenged his meter having deposited the meter challenge fee and that the meter was got checked from the M.E.Lab, having removed the meter vide MCO No. 71235/199 dated 19.9.2011 as deposed to by Er.J.K.Jindal AEE West Commercial, Sub Division, PSPCL, Patiala, in his sworn affidavit, Ex.OPA, who also stated that the subject meter was got checked from the ME Lab, in the presence of the complainant and it was found by the team consisting of Er.Sanjay Mittal,Sr.XEN Enforcement, Er.Barkha Ram,ME Sub Division, Er.Harpal Singh, JE West Commercial Sub Division, PSPCL and others that “Meter Accuracy OK” and that the complainant/consumer had signed on the ME Lab checking report for the authenticity of the same. It is also disclosed in the affidavit by Er.J.K.Jindal, that the electricity bills were raised as per actual consumption as recorded by  the new subject meter installed vide MCO No.71235/199 dated 19.9.2011.Thus, it would appear that the old meter was replaced by the Ops on 19.9.2011. The average bill to have been issued by the ops on the basis of ‘N’ code pertains to the period 10.9.2011 to 19.11.2011. The meter was replaced vide MCO              No.71235/199 dated 19.9.2011 and therefore, the Ops have to overhaul the bill for the period 10.9.2011 to 18.9.2011 only on the basis of the consumption, which might have been noted on the MCO No.71235/199, vide which the old meter was replaced. Therefore, we have not found any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The Ops are obliged to issue the revised bill for the period 10.9.2011 to 19.11.2011 based on the actual consumption to be taken from the MCO no.71235/199 dated 19.9.2011 when the old meter was replaced and with the help of the consumption recorded by the new meter for the period 19.9.2011 to 19.11.2011.

Pronounced

Dated:17.6.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                 Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                         Member                                  President