Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/114

Gurpartap Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

15 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT                  

                                                    C. C. No :              114 of 2018

Date of Institution :        3.07.2018

Date of Decision :        15.07.2019

Gurpartap Singh aged about 72 years s/o Natha Singh  r/o Mohalla Dodan, Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

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

   .........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 M S Brar, 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

cc no.- 114 of 2018

withdraw the illegal demand of  surcharges of Rs.56,870/- raised vide bill dt 18.06.2018  and for further directing them to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

2             Briefly stated, case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no 3000424657 and he has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. His meter is installed outside the premises in MCB. Complainant received a bill dated 18.06.2018 for Rs.56,870/- in which  this amount is raised for the period from 20.04.2018 to 18.06.2018 showing old reading as 2896 units and new reading of 9383 units. Bill was very excessive and he is not liable to pay the same. On receiving the same, complainant approached Ops and requested them to withdraw this excessive demand and on his request officials of OP-2 visited his site and found that meter number 696317 is installed to supply electricity to his connection whereas as per bill meter no. is 616317 and even complainant has no knowledge that when and why his meter was changed by Ops. Complainant made several requests to Ops to withdraw the said demand, but they did not pay any heed to hear his requests and flatly refused to correct the bill and OP-2  rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to him for which he has prayed for

cc no.- 114 of 2018

seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the this demand of surcharges and prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                           Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 4.07.2018, 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 of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that meter of complainant is installed in meter cup board and complainant is liable to protect the same. It is admitted by OPs that bill dated 21.06.2018 for the period from 20.02.2018 to 18.06.2018 for 153 units for Rs.1790/-was issued by them on the basis of meter status P code.  This bill for P code was deleted and bill was again issued on 22.06.2018 for the period from 20.04.2018 to 18.06.2018 showing old 2896 units and new reading of 9383 units for Rs.56,887/-. Bill was issued on the basis of consumption recorded in meter serial number 616317 and meter number previously wrongly written was corrected as 696317 instead of 616317. It is further averred that on request of complainant they checked his meter on 23.08.2018. Meter was of make AEW of 10-60 Ampere Capacity having serial number 696317 but in the bill meter number was wrongly mentioned as 616317. Reading of meter could not be recorded

cc no.- 114 of 2018

and during checking its display was not visible. When meter reader took the reading, it was showing consumption of 6487 units and when complainant came to know this fact, he intentionally damaged the meter. It is asserted that amount charged by them is as per reading recorded by meter and as per rules and regulations of OPs and there is no irregularity in it. Complainant is liable to pay this amount and they have every right to recover the same. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint 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 Ex C-24 and closed the same.

6                                                        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-20 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant and Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

 

cc no.- 114 of 2018

8                                               From the careful perusal of documents and evidence placed on record and after going through the arguments advanced by complainant counsel, it is observed that case of the complainant is that electric connection of complainant is installed outside his premises in MCB and he has been paying all the bills regularly and nothing is due  against consumption charges. He received a bill dated 18.06.2018 for Rs.56,870/- for the period from 20.04.2018 to 18.06.2018 showing old reading as 2896 units and new reading of 9383 units. It was very excessive and complainant approached and requested OPs to withdraw this excessive demand and on his request officials of OP-2 visited his site and found that meter number 696317 is installed to supply electricity to his connection whereas as per bill meter no. is 616317 and even complainant has no knowledge regarding change of his meter. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs did not withdraw their excessive demand which caused him great harassment and mental agony and it amounts to deficiency in service on their part. He has stressed on documents ExC-1 to ExC-24. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. On the other hand plea taken by OPs is that meter of complainant is installed in meter cup board and he is liable to protect the same. Bill dated 21.06.2018 for the period from 20.02.2018 to 18.06.2018 for 153 units for Rs.1790/-was issued on the basis of meter status P code.  This bill for P code was deleted and bill was again issued on 22.06.2018 for the period from 20.04.2018 to 18.06.2018 showing

 

cc no.- 114 of 2018

old 2896 units and new reading of 9383 units for Rs.56,887/- on the basis of consumption recorded in meter serial number 616317 and meter number previously wrongly written was corrected as 696317 instead of 616317. On request of complainant they checked his meter on 23.08.2018 and found that its serial number was 696317 but in the bill meter number was wrongly mentioned as 616317. It is  admitted that reading of meter could not be recorded and  its display was not visible. Plea taken by Ops that complainant has intentionally damaged the meter has no legs to stand upon the in the light of their own version that reading of meter could not be recorded as display of meter was not visible. Then, OPs cannot apprise that old meter reading of 2896 units and new reading of 9393 units is correctly recorded.

9                                   Now, it is admitted case of the parties that complainant is consumer of OPs having electric connection installed outside his premises in MCB, thus,  complainant had no access to the meter. It is further admitted that Ops issued bill dated 18.06.2018 for Rs.56,870/-. Ld counsel for complainant has brought our attention towards document Ex C-2 i.e copy of bill dated 22.06.2018 in which originally charged amount has been altered and amount of Rs.56,870/- has been written manually. Document Ex C-5 is copy of letter written by complainant to Ops vide which he made request to them and clearly stated that bill issued by them does not match with the reading recorded

 

cc no.- 114 of 2018

and again requested for checking his meter. Further Ex C-6 is also letter written by complainant to Ops that reveals the fact complainant had no knowledge regarding change of his meter. Documents Ex C-7 to ExC-24 are copies of bills and receipts that clearly prove that average consumption of meter of complainant has never been so high as shown by Ops in the impugned bill.  Main contention of complainant is that bill dated 18.06.2018 is highly excessive and is issued on the basis of wrongly recorded reading. Moreover, OPs have themselves admitted that at the time of checking the meter by their officials, display of meter was not visible and its reading could not be recorded. Therefore, OPs cannot raise such a huge amount on the basis of reading which is not visible on meter display and this action of OPs is inappropriate. So, it is clear that the 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

cc no.- 114 of 2018

 

consumption for the 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 bill dated 18.06.2018 is set aside and quashed. However, the Ops are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period 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.15,000/-deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 4.07.2018 passed by this Forum in subsequent bills. Compliance of this  order be made within one

cc no.- 114 of 2018

 

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 :15.07.2019

 

                              (Param Pal Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

   Member                                  President