Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/196

Buta Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

04 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :         196 of 2018

Date of Institution :     26.11.2018

Date of Decision :       04.09.2019

Buta Singh aged about 75 years s/o Kishan Singh r/o Village Marar, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer DS Sub Division, PSPCL,  Sadiq.                                   

        .........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 Rajneesh Garg, 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 State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.88,556/- raised vide notice dt 25.10.2018

cc no.-196 of 2018

and for further directing them to pay Rs.30,000/- 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. GT-38/0022 in his name and 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 notice dated 25.10.2018 for Rs.88,556/-on the basis of audit report for the period from 11/2017 to 02/2018 for 10239 units, which is very excessive as compare to normal consumption. Complainant gave replication to OP-2 to check and replace his meter. Further submitted that meter of complainant is installed outside his premises in meter cup board and he has no access to that. Demand raised by OPs is illegal and unlawful and is a violation of standing instructions of PSPCL. On receiving the same, complainant approached OPs and requested them to correct the same, but Ops failed to pay heed to his genuine request and threatened him to disconnect his connection, if he fails to deposit the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant made several requests to Ops to withdraw the demand for excessive charges, but they refused to accede to his requests and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to set aside the demand of Rs.88,556/-raised vide notice dt

cc no.-196 of 2018

25.10.2018 and for further directing them to pay Rs.30,000/- 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 28.11.2018, 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 complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. It is admitted that notice was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the amount. Further averred that inadvertently, bills for the period from 11/2017, 12/2017, 01/2018 and 02/2018 were charged on average basis whereas bills were to be charged on the basis of actual consumption of 10239 units, 618 units, 460 units and 348 units respectively. This mistake was detected by Audit Party and accordingly notice dated 25.10.2018 for Rs.88,556/-was issued to complainant and this amount is charged on the basis of consumption as per rules and regulations of OPs and is legally recoverable from him. It is averred that complainant is liable to make payment of consumption charges which are due towards him and they have every right to recover the same. Complainant is not entitled to any compensation or relief. It is  

cc no.-196 of 2018

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.

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 9 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Santokh Singh as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-3 and closed the evidence.

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 OPs issued him notice dt 25.10.2018 for Rs.88,556/-, which is very excessive. Amount of Rs.88,556/-charged by OPs in impugned notice dated 25.10.2018 is highly excessive and despite repeated requests, OPs did not correct the bill and have failed to redress his grievance. Complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to withdraw the said notice dated 25.10.2018. In reply, plea taken by OPs is that bills for the

cc no.-196 of 2018

period from 11/2017, 12/2017, 01/2018 and 02/2018 were charged on average basis, but inadvertently, these bills were to be charged on the basis of actual consumption of 10239 units, 618 units, 460 units and 348 units respectively. This mistake was detected by Audit Party and accordingly notice dated 25.10.2018 for Rs.88,556/- was issued to complainant and this amount is charged on the basis of consumption as per rules and regulations of OPs and this amount is due towards complainant and he is liable to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

9                                                  Now, it is admitted case of the parties that complainant is consumer of OPs having electric connection installed outside his premises. It is further admitted that Ops issued notice dated 25.10.2018 for Rs.88,556/-. Ld counsel for complainant pleaded before the Forum that amount in question is raised for consumption of 10239 units and it is very excessive and illegal. Plea taken by OPs that for the period from 11/2017 to 02/2018 they inadvertently issued bill on average basis and when audit party detected this mistake, they issued notice to complainant as per consumption of units. It is observed that Ops have themselves admitted in written version that inadvertently, bills for the period from 11/2017, 12/2017, 01/2018 and 02/2018 were charged on average basis which were to be charged on the basis of actual consumption of 10239 units, 618 units, 460 units and 348 units respectively.  This  mistake  was  detected

 

cc no.-196 of 2018

by Audit Party and accordingly notice dated 25.10.2018 for Rs.88,556/-. Consumption of 618 units, 460 units and 348 units for  the months of 12/2017, 01/2018 and 02/2018 seems appropriate but it is unbelievable that meter of complainant consumed 10239 units during the month of November, 2017. Amount of Rs.88,556/-raised by Ops vide notice dated 25.10.2018 on the basis of Audit Report for the period from 11/2017 to 02/2018 on the basis of consumption is inappropriate and does not seem to be correct. Average consumption of the complainant appears to be within 300 to 600 units, but consumption of 10239 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

cc no.-196 of 2018

 

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.

10                                    In the instant case, the average consumption for the corresponding period of the previous year 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 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.

11                                  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 notice dated 25.10.2018 is set aside and quashed. However, the Ops are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period i.e Nov.2017 by overhauling his account on the basis of average consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year. Ops are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.30,000/- deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 28.11.2019 passed by this

 

cc no.-196 of 2018

 

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 : 04.09.2019

 

                                        (Param Pal Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

            Member                                   President