DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                   Consumer Complaint No.724 of 2016

                                         Date of institution:  21.10.2016                                                Date of decision   :  14.12.2017

Birbal Singh son of Shri Ganga Ram resident of House No.32, Guru Nanak Colony, Dhakauli, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

 ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.     Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala through its Xen, Division, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

3.     Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala through its SDO, Sub Division, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar.

                                                 ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Shri M.R. Verma, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Pankaj Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Birbal Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant is consumer of the OPs vide domestic Account No.274K180370A. The complainant has been paying the bills of consumption issued by the OPs since 2011 to 2013. In June, 2014 the OPs issued bill to the complainant for Rs.10,000/- which was paid by the complainant on 27.06.2014. The OPs issued temporary bill for Rs.15,942/- on 02.07.2014 and the complainant made written objections against this bill in July, 2014. Then OPs issued bill for Rs.22,680/- in August, 2014 and on verbal objections of the complainant, the OPs directed him to deposit Rs.7,000/- which were paid by the complainant through cheque. The complainant raised objections to the bill of Rs.22,680/- issued in August, 2014 and on verbal directions of the OPs, the complainant paid Rs.7,000/- through cheque. The OPs issued bill dated 31.10.2014 for Rs.22,320/- and on objections of the complainant, the OPs directed him to pay Rs.5,500/- out of Rs.22,320/-.  The OPs issued bill dated 30.06.2016 for Rs.43,520/-. The complainant raised objections vide letter dated 04.07.2016 but no reply was given by the OPs.  The OPs without prior notice/intimation removed the electricity meter of the complainant on 18.07.2016.  There is no continuity of units consumed and the bills are not issued on the actual consumption. The complainant submitted numerous letters/written objections but the OPs kept silent and did not respond. 

3.             The complainant had earlier filed complaint before this Forum and vide order dated 01.09.2016 the OPs were directed to pass speaking order on the complaint of the complainant. The complainant was given liberty to approach this Forum on the same cause action. The complainant sent letter to the OPs through registered post on 07.09.2016 alongwith letters dated 10.08.2016 and 17.08.2016.  However, the OPs have been issuing irregular bills of highly excessive amounts. Hence this complaint for directions to the OPs to pay him Rs.2,70,000/-  for issuing irregular bills by not adopting the procedure/rules; Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical harassment; Rs.50,000/- on account of injury and loss suffered by the complainant; Rs.50,000/- towards exercising mal trade practice; Rs.20,000/- for hurting the mandatory personal  liberty rights and removing the electricity meter and Rs.10,000/-  for consultancy and documents expenses.

4             The OPs in the written reply has pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  The complainant is liable to pay the electricity consumption charges which were consumed by him. The Ops had already sent notice of intimation to the complainant vide memo dated 06.08.2014 alongwith details from 03/2011 to 05/2013 vide No.919 dated 02.07.2014 for Rs.15,942/- against account No.Z74K180370A. The complainant had received the notice for the amount charged by the OPs through internal audit party. During the period 3/2011 to 05/2013 all the bills were issued under ‘F’ code by computer whereas the total units consumed by the complainant during this period was 4008 and as per the manual data received during this period it was 6331 units. The difference of units between both the details was 2323 units which were extra units consumed by the complainant during that period. Due to nonpayment of electricity charges, the OPs had disconnected the connection of the complainant with prior notice. After interim relief given by this Forum, the OPs had restored the connection. On merits, the OPs have pleaded that they explained each and every thing to the complainant time and again that whatever consumption has been consumed in the electricity meter, the OPs only charged that particular amount.  The audit party clearly spells out the details of the total consumption, the total units charged and paid by the complainant and the difference between the actual consumption and the remaining units. The OPs asked the complainant to deposit the difference in consumption charges which was legally recoverable from the complainant.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

5.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of bills Ex.C-1 to C-14; letter Ex.C-15; bill Ex.C-16; receipt Ex.C-17; bill Ex.C-18; receipt Ex.C-19; bill Ex.C-20; letters Ex.C-21 and Ex.C-22; bills Ex.C-23 to C-27; letter Ex.C-28; bill Ex.C-29; letter Ex.C-30; bills Ex.C-31 to C-34; letter Ex.C-35 and order of this Forum Mark-A. In rebuttal, the counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Er. Navjot Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer Commercial Division, Zirakpur Ex.OP-1/1; copies of hand written consumption data Ex.OP-1; computerized consumption data Ex.OP-2 and MCO Ex.OP-3.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties.  The OPs had been issuing irregular bills to the complainant since 28.10.2013 and the complainant since then requesting the OPs to issue him the bills as per actual consumption. On receipt of irregular bills, the complainant had been approaching the OPs and had been depositing the amounts as directed by the OPs. But the OPs have failed to rectify the consumption of the bills issued to the complainant.  Ultimately the OPs issued bill dated 30.06.2016 to the complainant for Rs.45,870/- and the complainant raised objections vide his representation dated 04.07.2016 Ex.C-28. However, the OPs without deciding the objections of the complainant and without prior intimation to the complainant, removed his electricity meter on 18.07.2016. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint before this Forum and vide interim order dated 01.09.2016 and 27.10.2016 the Ops were directed to restore the electricity connection of the complainant subject to deposit of 30% of the amount of the bill dated 30.06.2016 i.e. Rs.45,870/-.  During arguments the counsel for the complainant has submitted that the electricity connection of the complainant has now been restored by the OPs but he has submitted that the complainant has to remain without electricity at his residence for many months.  The OPs have not placed on record any document to show that before removing the electricity meter of the complainant, they had issued any notice to him or his consent was taken before removal. The complainant has led voluminous evidence to show that he has been requesting the Ops to rectify his bills and inform him about the actual consumption but the OPs have not done so. Thus, removal of electricity meter of the complainant without any notice to the complainant is an act of deficiency in service.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we direct the OPs pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/-  (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) on account of mental agony due to the negligent act of the OPs alongwith litigation costs. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.            

                The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 14.12.2017    

                                           (A.P.S.Rajput)                 

President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member