Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/30/2017

Gurmail Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.

                  

                     Consumer Complaint No.  30 of 12.06.2017

                      Date of Decision             :   13.11.2017

 

 

Gurmail Ram son of Sh.Bhana Ram Resident of Village Bairsal, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.                                                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, Patiala
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Rahon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar, through S.D.O.

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         In person.

For OPs                         :         Sh.P.K. Dhir, Advocate

QUORUM:

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 ORDER

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having electric connection bearing No.N45GR410265W on his name at Village Bairwal.  Two months ago, the domestic electric meter was stopped then he moved an application to change the electric meter but despite changing the meter, the electric meter connection is running too fast and the electric bill was very excessive.  In this regard, the applicant visited in the office of PSPCL, at Rahon but all in vain.  The applicant has paying the bill in compulsion.  The applicant shocked when he received the bill of Rs.18120/- for 18.03.2017 to 12.05.2017.  The complainant so tired to visit the office of OPs .  In the house, where the electric meter has installed, there is two room, one kitchen and in which 3 bulbs, 2 fans and 1 fridge and T.V. was running.  All the consumption having not too load as compared to the electric bill.  Complainant is an old person and usually not feeling well.  The complainant has prayed that kindly quashed the bill of Rs.18,120/-.
2. Upon notice, the OPs have appeared and filed written version.  In preliminary objections, the OPs have contended that the application of the applicant is not maintainable in the present form.  The applicant has no locus standi to file the present application.  Addl. S.E. (PSPCL Nawanshahr) is necessary party, hence the application is liable to be dismissed.  On merits, OPs have admitted that domestic connection bearing No.N45GR410265W is in name of Gurmail Ram and its sanctioned load is 1.08 KW.  Applicant gave an application to the OP-2 on 14.12.2016 that his meter is stopped and requested to change the same.  As per report of J.E., the meter was stopped.  On the request of applicant the meter was changed vide MCO No.159/13031 dated 14.12.2016.  Rani daughter in law of the applicant – Gurmail Ram gave the consent on behalf of applicant to OP-2 that his meter be checked in the absence of Gurmail Ram – applicant due to busyness.  That the result of M.E. Lab will accepted by Gurmail Ram.  Meter was sent to M.E. Lab for testing and report of M.E. Lab yet to be awaited.  That the Audit Party overhauled the account of the applicant and charged Rs.16,211/- as sundry charges due to less consumption from 3/2016 to 9/2016.  Notice for the sundry charges was given to the applicant vide memo dated 25.04.2017 through ordinary post.  The consumption for the month of 3/2016 is 73 units, in 5/2016, 85 units, 7/2016 37 units and in 9/2016 there was only MMC bill.  But according to the Audit Party made the base year from the period 3/2015 to 9/2015 and in the base period consumption for the month in 3/2015 , 363 units, and in 5/2015, 755 units, 7/2016 882 units and in 9/2016, 416 units.  The OP-2 charged Rs.15,998/- in sundry charges as difference of units in base year i.e. 2015 and current year 2016.  This shows as proof that the consumption of the applicant was decreased in the year 2016.  That the OP charged Rs.18120/- as per rules and regulations of Powercom and lastly prayed that complaint of the complainant is without merits and same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the case, complainant himself has tendered into evidence self declaration Ex.CW-1 alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and close the evidence.
4. Similarly, the counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ram Lal, AEE, PSPCL Ex.OPA alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and further tendered document Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for the OPs and scanned the case file very minutely.
6. As per contentions of the applicant that he is an old age person and usually he is not feeling well and moreover, he has installed only 3 Bulbs, 2 fans, 1 fridge and TV except that there is no electric components installed by the complainant but the meter issued to the complainant is on excessive side.  As per previous record usually consumption of the complainant is not more than 308 units as mentioned in the bill dated 12.05.2017 Ex.C-1.  But the OPs has levelled sundry charges of Rs.16211/- and further adding consumption charges, the total bill comes to Rs.18120/-, sundry charges imposed is on the basis of memo/notice dated 25.04.2017, wherein it is categorically mentioned that meter of the complainant was remained dead and same was removed and new electric meter was installed in the premises of the complainant and removed meter was sent to ME Lab for testing, consent was obtained from daughter in law of the complainant for getting test the said meter in the absence of the complainant, till today, the report of the ME Lab has not been produced on the file, moreover the consumer is complainant and electric meter of the complainant has been changed and consent for checking of meter is only from complainant not from other person.  So it is clear that the meter of the complainant has not been checked in the presence of the complainant which is apparently important as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL and if any previous charges imposed without report of the ME Lab is apparently wrong and as such we are of the considered opinion that OPs cannot demand any sundry charges from the complainant, rather the OPs are only entitled to recover only consumption charges by excluding the sundry charges of Rs.16211/- in bill dated 12.05.2017 Ex.C-1. 
7. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of complainant is partly accepted and accordingly the sundry charges imposed in the bill Ex.C-1 is quashed from the bill and remaining bill is liable to be paid by the complainant and if any amount during the pendency of this complaint is deposited by the complainant as per order of this Forum, the same will be adjusted in the remaining consumption bill.
8. Entire compliance of aforesaid order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 13.11.2017                                                         

 

 

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President