DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.410 of 10-09-2010 Decided on 13-01-2011
Gian Singh, aged about 60 years S/o Santokh Singh, resident of Mandir Wali Gali, Bhucho Mandi, Tehsil Nathana, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
The Secretary, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala. Sub-Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Civil Lines Sub Division, Bathinda. Sub-Divisional Officer, Civil Lines Sub Division, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Sandeep Bansal, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.R.D. Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding electric meter bearing No.B12MT110303W in his name. The complainant had rented out the abovesaid property since last two years. The opposite party No.2 always sent the bills on average load basis. The complainant had approached the opposite party No.3 for the adjustment of bill but the opposite party No.3 paid no heed to the request of the complainant. The meter reader did not visit regularly to the said building for taking reading of monthly consumption. The complainant had paid all the bills regularly as under:- Bill No. Old reading New reading Duration Amount Status 47101 12168 12168 18/11/08 to 26/12/08 2210 Paid 62910 12168 12168 26/12/08 to 26/02/09 3200 Paid 2810 12168 12168 26/02/09 to 28/08/09 7390 Paid 78557 Nil 12168 Nil 1780 Paid 18898 12168 12168 28/08/09 to 28/10/09 3570 Paid 35096 12168 15091 28/10/09 to 26/12/09 15810 Not paid. The complainant paid Rs.5,000/- on 13.03.2010 through cheque bearing No.326627 to the concerned area J.E. who assured that he would adjust the bill. According to this MMC bill was charged by the opposite party No.1. The complainant had paid to the opposite party No.1 excess amount than chargeable from him. The authorized person i.e. area J.E. assured that dispute regarding amount, would be settled within few days. The bill has been issued regularly on MMC basis which shows that the meter reader did not carry forward the reading of the consumed units on regular basis. This reading continued upto bill No.35096 dated 19.01.2010. During the previous 12 months, the meter reader reported the meter status as 'O' and the aforesaid premises was always opened except two times i.e. at the time of issuance the bill Nos.78857 dated 19.05.2009 and 86926 dated 21.07.2009 respectively. The complainant has also sent a legal notice to the opposite party Nos.1&3 on 01.07.2010. The opposite party Nos.2&3 replied through memo No.532 dated 08.07.2010 in which they have mentioned that their meter reader visited the aforesaid building but the building remained closed and the bill was sent on MMC basis. The complainant again wrote a letter dated 19.07.2010 to the opposite party Nos.2&3 that his building was locked only for 2 times. The complainant had requested the opposite party Nos.2&3 to adjust the excess amount in future bills. The complainant had never received the reply from the opposite party Nos.2&3 to his letter dated 19.07.2010. The complainant had paid Rs.4,255/- more than he actually had to pay to the opposite parties. The complainant had paid the tariff for 15 months, for the first 9 months Rs.13837.50/- and for the last 6 months Rs.5,053.86/-. In this way, the total amount was payable Rs.18,895/- but the complainant had paid Rs.23,150/-. In this way, the complainant had paid Rs.4,255/- in excess. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint with a prayer to seek directions against the opposite parties to refund Rs.15,455/- besides compensation and litigation expenses. 2. The opposite parties in their written statement have pleaded that the electricity bills were issued regularly but the complainant did not pay the bills regularly and he is defaulter in paying the bills. The opposite parties did not send the bill at all times on average load basis. The bills for the period of 22.07.2008 to 22.03.2009 were issued on the basis of minimum monthly charges, the status of the meter was OK but the reading was shown 12168 upto 22.03.2010. The bills dated 19.05.2009 and 21.07.2009 were issued on average basis as the premises were locked. The bills for the period 22.09.2009 and 20.11.2009 were also issued on minimum monthly charges basis as the complainant did not use the electricity during this period. The bills for the period 19.01.2010 was issued on consumption basis. In this period, the complainant used the electricity and from that period till today, the bills were issued on consumption basis. The complainant did not pay the bills for the period of 21.05.2010, 20.07.2010 and 20.09.2010 as the complainant is defaulter as such the question of adjustment does not arise. The meter reader visited the premises of the complainant but the complainant did not use the electricity, the status of the meter was shown as OK, the charges were taken on the basis of minimum monthly charges. The complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- on 13.03.2010. The complainant did not pay more amount as alleged by him. The J.E. did not give any assurance for the settlement of the bills and as such,the complainant has no right to exemption of free units of 310 as stated by him. The meter reader visited the premises of the complainant and gave the noting in the meter reader book as shown in the meter. The reply was given by the opposite parties but the complainant did not pay any excess amount. At the time of issuance of two bills, when the meter reader visited the premises, it was locked but in the remaining period, the premises was not locked. The bills were duly issued as per rules and regulations of the Board. In this way, the complainant is not entitled for any refund of the amount. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that he has been paying the electricity bills regularly and has given chart of his paid bills which is reproduced as under:- Bill No. Old reading New reading Duration Amount Status 47101 12168 12168 18/11/08 to 26/12/08 2210 Paid 62910 12168 12168 26/12/08 to 26/02/09 3200 Paid 2810 12168 12168 26/02/09 to 28/08/09 7390 Paid 78557 Nil 12168 Nil 1780 Paid 18898 12168 12168 28/08/09 to 28/10/09 3570 Paid 35096 12168 15091 28/10/09 to 26/12/09 15810 Not paid. The complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- on 13.03.2010 through cheque bearing No.326627 to the opposite parties. Accordingly, the minimum charges bill was charged from the complainant by the opposite party No.1 but the complainant had paid opposite party No.1 the more amount that was chargeable from the complainant. The opposite parties have been issuing the bills regularly on MMC basis. The complainant contended that the meter reader did not carry forward the reading of the consumed units on regular basis. This continued upto bill No.35096 dated 19.01.2010. During the twelve months, the meter reader reported the meter condition OK. The premises of the complainant was always opened except two times i.e. at the time of issuing the bill No.78557 dated 19.05.2009 and 86926 dated 21.07.2009 respectively. The complainant has further submitted that he would be given 310 units free on monthly basis as per given tariff mentioned at the back side of the monthly bill. According to him, he had paid the tariff for 15 months, for the first nine months, he had paid Rs.13,837.95/- and for the last 6 months, he had paid Rs.5,053.86/-. In this way, the total bill payment was of Rs.18,895/- but the complainant had paid Rs.23,150/-. The complainant had paid Rs.4,255/- in excess to the opposite parties. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant has been using the connection for NRS purposes and had not paid the bills regularly. Every time, the opposite parties had not sent the bill on average load basis. The bills for the period 22.07.2008 to 22.03.2009 were issued on minimum consumption basis as the status of the meter was OK but the meter reading was shown 12168 upto 22.03.2010. During this time, the complainant did not use the electricity. The bills for the period 19.05.2009 and 21.07.2009 were issued on average basis as the premises were locked. The bills for the period 22.09.2009 and 20.11.2009 were issued on minimum charges basis because the complainant had not used the electricity in this time. The bill for the period of 19.01.2010 was issued on consumption basis because during this time, the complainant had used the electricity and from that onward till today, the bills were issued on consumption basis. The complainant did not pay the bills for the period of 21.05.2010, 20.07.2010 and 20.09.2010. The complainant had already paid Rs.5,000/- on 08.03.2010. The complainant is not entitled for exemption of free units of 310. 7. The complainant is defaulter of paying three bills dated 21.05.2010, 20.07.2010 and 20.09.2010. The complainant had deposited Rs.5,000/- on 08.03.2010. The complainant had written a letter Ex.C-6 in which, he has made consumption data. According to this consumption data, the complainant had himself admitted that he had not paid the bill issued by the opposite parties dated 28.10.2009 to 26.12.2009 for Rs.15,810/-. The old reading shown in this data is 12168 units and new reading is 15091. The bill has been issued for 2923 units. The opposite parties have admitted in their letters dated 08.07.2010 Ex.C-7 and dated 29.07.2010 Ex.C-8 that when the meter reader went to the premises of the complainant, it was either locked or not used by the complainant. Hence, the consumption was not recorded and the bills were sent on MMC basis. On 26.12.2009, the consumption of the meter was recorded as 15091 and accordingly, the bills of 2923 units was sent to the complainant. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 19.01.2010 as exorbitant bill. This bill has been issued on the basis of consumed units and the status of the bill has been shown as OK. The opposite parties have placed the consumption data on file Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6. This data shows that the complainant has been paying the bills regularly but he is defaulter in paying the bills for 21.05.2010, 20.07.2010 and 20.09.2010. These bills have been issued for Rs.16,280/-, Rs.24,606/- and Rs.33,059/- and the total amount of these bills was of Rs.73,945/-. The complainant had challenged the bill of Rs.15,810/- dated 19.01.2010. The complainant had paid Rs.5,000/- out of this bill. 8. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.500/- as cost. The opposite parties are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant. As during the issuance of the bill dated 21.07.2009 Ex.C-11 and bill dated 22.09.2009 Ex.C-10, the premises were opened but no electricity has been used. At the time of issuing the bills dated 19.05.2009 Ex.C-12 and 22.03.2009 Ex.C-13, the premises were locked, the electricity was not used in the premises and the same in case of bill dated 20.01.2009 Ex.C-14. The opposite parties are directed to overhaul all the bills which have been charged from him. He had already paid Rs.5,000/- on 08.03.2010 for bill dated 19.01.2010 and the opposite parties can charge the remaining bills accordingly. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 13-01-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
| 
