Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/76

Chet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :       76

Date of Institution : 18.03.2016

Date of Decision :    22.11.2016

Chet Singh aged about 57 years s/o Sh Ujjagar Singh, r/o Dhanka Basti, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, 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 Urban Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd Jaitu.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 (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 set aside the demand of Rs.72,320/-and Rs.1,808/-raised vide bill dt 24.06.2015 and 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 NRS electric connection bearing a/c no. EF 35/0941 (old) and 3000247390 (new) running in his shop for self employment and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards  him. It is contended that complainant received a bill dt 27.04.2015 of 210 units for Rs.2500/- by showing old reading as 5706 and new as 5916 units. complainant again received bill dt 24.06.2015 of 9665 units of Rs.72,320/- by showing old reading as 5706 units and new as 15371 units, which is very excessive. On receiving the same, complainant approached OP-2 and requested to check the meter and correct the bill and on this, RA got deposited the bill on average basis alongwith Rs.120/- as meter challenge fee vide receipt dt 26.06.2015. As per demand of OP-2, complainant also deposited Rs.450/-on 30.06.2015 as cost of meter. Thereafter, his meter was removed and new one was installed and  complainant received bill dt 26.08.2015 for Rs. 74,770/;  dated 26.10.2015 for Rs.75,090/-; bill dated 23.12.2015 for Rs.74,830/- and bill dated 24.02.2016 for Rs.79,160/-. In bill dated 24.02.2016 for Rs.79,160/-, amount of Rs.74,211/-is added as arrears of disputed bill and it also includes Rs.1808/- as sundry charges without any detail or prior notice. When complainant visited OP-2 to deposit the current consumption charges and to know about the detail of said bill, it was verbally told to him that said amount is charged on the basis of checking of meter in M E Lab. No other detail or report of M E Lab was given to complainant.OP-2 refused to get deposited the current bill and forced him to make payment of entire amount charged in the bill and threatened to disconnect his connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time. Complainant was told by RA of OPs that this amount is charged on the basis of letter no.1066 dated 2.09.2015, received from M E Lab, Bathinda. It is further contended that meter of complainant is not checked in his presence and no decision on same is ever conveyed to him. It is further contended that as per M E Lab Report, the meter of complainant is dead and hence, there is no report that same was working properly at the site. Action of OPs in not allowing him to deposit the current charges and threatening him for disconnection amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part 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 withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs 10000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                           Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 22.03.2016, 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 OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and connection in question is being used for commercial purpose and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that amount in question is due and recoverable from complainant and bill for present amount on the basis of units consumed was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the said amount but he did not deposit the same. It is averred that complainant challenged the meter and on his request, his meter was sent to M E Lab for checking  vide challan no. 120 dated 20.07.2015 and when it was removed, reading on it was for 15371 units. On checking , M E Lab found that body of meter was intact, but meter was dead. There also, it was showing the reading of 15371 units and the last bill which was charged from complainant was of 5706 units and thus, the difference of 9665 units (15371-5706 =9665 units) was charged from complainant and complete detail of amount charged was given to complainant. Moreover, complainant gave undertaking that he has no problem if his meter was checked in his absence. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally. 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.

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 18 and closed the same.

6                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Arshpreet Singh as Ex R-1 and documents Ex R-2 and 3 and then, evidence of OPs was closed by order of this Forum.

7                    The ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant has  a NRS electric connection bearing a/c no. EF 35/0941 (old) and 3000247390 (new) running in his shop for self employment and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill dt 27.04.2015 of 210 units for Rs.2500/- by showing old reading as 5706 and new reading as 5916 units. complainant again received bill dt 24.06.2015 of 9665 units of Rs.72,320/- by showing old reading as 5706 units and new reading as 15371 units, which is very excessive. On receiving the same, complainant approached OP-2 and requested to check the meter and to correct the bill and on this, RA got deposited the bill on average basis alongwith Rs.120/- as meter challenge fee vide receipt dt 26.06.2015. As per demand of OP-2, complainant also deposited Rs.450/-on 30.06.2015 as cost of meter. Thereafter, his meter was removed and new one was installed and complainant received bill dt 26.08.2015 for Rs. 74,770/;  dated 26.10.2015 for Rs.75,90/-; bill dated 23.12.2015 for Rs.74,830/- and bill dated 24.02.2016 for Rs.79,160/-. In bill dated 24.02.2016 for Rs.79,160/-, amount of Rs.74,211/-is added as arrears of disputed bill and it also includes Rs.1808/- as sundry charges without any detail or prior notice. When complainant visited  OP-2 to deposit the current consumption charges and to know about the detail of said bill, it was verbally told to him that said amount is charged on the basis of checking of meter in M E Lab. No other detail or report of M E Lab was given to him.OP-2 refused to get deposited the current bill and forced him to make payment of entire amount charged in the bill and threatened to disconnect his connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time. Complainant was told by RA of OPs that this amount is charged on the basis of letter no.1066 dated 2.09.2015, received from M E Lab, Bathinda. It is further contended that meter of complainant is not checked in his presence and no decision on same is ever conveyed to him. It is further contended that as per M E Lab Report, the meter of complainant is dead and hence, there is no report that same was working properly at the site. Action of OPs in not allowing him to deposit the current charges and threatening him for disconnection, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litgation expenses besides the main relief.

8                       To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of  consumer. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this case. The Ops have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees and complainant should approach such committees to settle his dispute and moreover, complainant is not their consumer and connection in question is being used for commercial purpose and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is asserted that amount in question is due and recoverable from complainant and bill in question was sent to complainant for power consumed by him. It is averred that complainant challenged the meter and on his request, his meter was sent to M E Lab for checking  vide challan no. 120 dated 20.07.2015 and when it was removed, reading on it was for 15371 units. On checking , M E Lab found that body of meter was intact, but meter was dead. There also, it was showing the reading of 15371 units and the last bill which was charged from complainant was of 5706 units and thus, the difference of 9665 units (15371-5706 =9665 units) was charged from complainant and complete detail of amount charged was given to complainant. Moreover, complainant gave undertaking that he has no problem if his meter was checked in his absence. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally. 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 to dismiss the complaint.

9                          We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

10                          The case of the complainant is that he has a NRS electric connection issued by OPs in his shop and he is regularly paying all the bill of electricity charges. He was receiving excessive bill and he challenged the bill and requested Ops to check his meter and on his request vide challan no 120 dt 20.07.2015, his meter was sent to ME lab, where on checking it was found dead. Contention of complainant is that his meter was checked in his absence and action charging this excessive amount on account of reading of dead meter is totally and illegal. On the other hand, ld counsel for OPs argued that amount in dispute is still due and recoverable by Ops from complainant. All the bills were issued to complainant as per actual consumption charges and they have not sent any excessive bill. On request of complainant, the meter in dispute was checked in M E Lab. At the time of removing the meter from the premises of complainant, it was showing the reading of 15371 units and in the report of M E Lab the same reading is shown. As per report of M E Lab, the meter was dead. The complainant was lastly charged for 5706 units and on difference of 15371 units and 5706 units, which  comes to 9665 units, was charged from complainant on the basis of actual consumption bill and Ops are legally entitled to recover this amount from complainant.

11                           We have thoroughly gone through the file and evidence led by the parties. Ld counsel for complainant argued that the average consumption of the complainant is about 100-200 units per billing cycle and he never consumed electricity more than this. When he received bill for 9665 units, which was very excessive than the actual consumption, he challenged the bill. This consumption is not correctly recorded. To prove his case, he produced on record copy of bill dated 24.06.2015 vide which the previous reading of 27.02.2015 is mentioned as 5706 and current of 24.06.2015 as 15371 units and consumption of 9665 units. The copy of bill is Ex C-2. In this bill, the consumption of last six billing circles is varied upon 82 to 255 units. The complainant also produced copies of electricity bills as Ex C-3 to 18 i.e prior to period in question and after that period recoded by the new meter. In all these bills, the average consumption of the complainant is from 100-250 units per billing circle. The OPs also themselves produced meter reading sheet of meter account of complainant for the period from 5.04.2012 to 27.04.2016 as Ex OP-3. From this document, it is further clear that the average consumption of the complainant varies from 100-250 units per billing circle and not more than it. So, the bill in question Ex C-2 for the period from 27.02.2015 to 24.06.2015 for the consumption of 9665 units can not be taken to be correct whereas the average consumption of the complainant is very less than this bill.

12                    We are of considered opinion that OPs did not issue this bill correctly as per actual consumption of the complainant. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, present complaint is hereby allowed. The OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.72,320/-raised by them vide bill dated 24.06.2015 Ex C-2 and they are directed to overhaul the bill of complainant for the period from 27.02.2015 to 24.06.2015 on the basis of average  consumption of previous year. Ops are further directed to re-adjust the amount of Rs.15,000/- already deposited by complainant in compliance of the order dated 22.03.2016 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 as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 22.11.2016

                   Member                   Member               President                     (Parampal Kaur)                 (P Singla)            (Ajit Aggarwal)