Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/74/2019

Harkart Singh alias Harkirt Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh MP Nayyar

09 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

 

Consumer Complaint No.74 of 05.08.2019

           Date of Decision            :  09.01.2020

 

Harkart Singh @ Harkirt Singh s/o Pritam Singh, r/o Village Gorakpur Rahon, District SBS Nagar, Punjab since died through his legal heir/son Hadip Singh (being beneficiary of electric connection bearing no.N45CF320163Y.

….. Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall Patiala, through its Chairman.

2.       The Superintendent Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Circle Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

3.       The Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Rahon, District S.B.S   Nagar.

…Opposite parties

 

(Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER.

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.M.PNayyar, Advocate

For OPs                          :         Sh.S.S. Garcha, Advocate

 

Per KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed by Hardip Singh son of complainant Harkart Singh (since deceased) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs on the averments thathe is consumer of OPs having domestic electricity connection bearing no.N45CF320163Y installed in his  residence. HardipSingh is user/beneficiary of the said connection and he is paying regular consumption bills to OPs bimonthly as received without any default. He received bill issued on 06.03.2018 to the tune of Rs.5310/-,08.06.2018 to the tune of Rs.3920/-,05.07.2018 to the tune of Rs.1730/-, 30.08.2018 to the tune of Rs.590/-, 30.10.2018 to the tune of Rs.1610/-.  Hardip Singh being beneficiary of aforesaid electric connection had paid the consumed electricity bill for the said period issued by OPs and never committed any default. The complainant had received the bill dated 01.01.2019  for the period of 31.10.2018 to 01.01.2019 for Rs.3779/- of consumption of 483 units.  In the said bill, status of meter was shown a ‘D’. At the time of recording reading of the said bill, aforesaid Hardip Singh has asked to the meter reader regarding status of meter as ‘D’ code, then, the said  meter reader has disclosed that his meter is not working OK and required to be changed and also disclosed that he has intimated R.A of concerned office for the same.  He has further received bill dated 01.03.2019 of reading from 06.02.2019 to 01.03.2019 of 538 units for Rs.4253/-. The status of the meter is mentioned ‘F’ code. OPs have issued a bill dated 03.07.2019, for the period of 06.05.2019 to 03.07.2019 of 1024 units for 40,551/-. The status in said bill is ‘O’. But in the said bill, the OPs have demanded sundry charges to the tune of Rs.23876/- illegally and arbitrarily for which OPs have no right to do so. The complainant visited the office of OPs to rectify the same and OPs asked him to deposit Rs.8352/- out of disputed amount, but failed to set aside the sundry charges of Rs.23,876/-. The bill in question is against law and ultra virus and having no value in the eyes of law. The OPs are adamant to charge excess money unlawfully from the complainant. OPs have also failed to disclose the detail of sundry charges etc. OPs have changed the meter of the complainant without the consent of the complainant, which is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service towards complainant through his legal heir being beneficiary of electric connection. The OPs have no right to recover the alleged amount for the period, where complainant usage in excess. Due the above said act of OPs, the complainant has suffered harassment, physical/mental tension and financial loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and prayed that OPs be directed to quash the demand of Rs.23876/- of bill dated 03.07.2019 being raised as sundry charges by OPs, besides Rs.50,000/-as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as the bill of complainant was revised as per law. The complainant has got no cause of action to file the complaint.  The complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum. On merits, it was averred that  electric meter was found defective in November 2018. Electric meter was changed on 18.02.2019, vide MCO No. 14/98104 dated 05.02.2019. Meter was removed, packed and sealed in the presence of complainant but he refused to sign the presence sheet. Meter was sent to ME Lab Goraya through store challan no.3 dated 10.05.2019 and meter was checked in the presence of XEN Enforcement Nawanshahr AE of ME Lab Goraya SDO PSPCL Rahon.  During checking, it was found that meter bearing serial no.493644 of complainant was burnt. During audit of month March 2019, Audit Party overhauled the account of the complainant for six months i.e.   for the months 07/18, 09/18 and 11/18 as per instruction no.21.5.2 of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual of 2018. The audit party revised and changed the amount of Rs.23,756/- for consumption of 6 months through half margin no. 217 dated 12.03.2019. Then bill-cum-show cause notice served to the complainant and asked him to deposit the revised bill of Rs.23,756/-vide memo no. 1035 dated 10.06.2019 and complainant was asked to raise objection, if any within 15 days but no objections were raised by complainant within stipulated period, so the amount charged in the month of July 2019 in the bill dated 03.07.2019 Rs.23756/- + Rs.120/- RCO fees. OPs denied any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.       The complainant tendered in evidence his ownaffidavit  Ex.CW-A and rejoinder affidavit Ex.CW1/B along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-23 and closed the evidence. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Tarwinder Singh SDO/AE Rahon as Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.

4.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record of the case.We have to advert to evidence on the record to settle the controversy in this case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-A on the record. He stated that he is using the electric connection bearing no. N45CF320163Y as per their domestic needs. He received the consumption in the year 2018 i.e. bill issued on 05.03.2018 to the tune of Rs.5310/-, 08.05.2018 to the tune of Rs.3920/-, 05.07.2018 to the tune of Rs.1730/-, 30.08.2018 to the tune of Rs.590/-, 30.10.2018 to the tune of Rs.1610/-. The aforesaid Hardip Singh being beneficiary of above said connection had paid the consumed electricity bill for the said period issued by OPs.  He further received the bill dated 01.01.2019 for the period 31.10.2018 to 01.01.2019 for Rs.3779/- of consumption of 483 units. In the said bill, status of meter was shown as D. At the time of taking reading of the said bill, the aforesaid Hardip Singh has asked to meter reader regarding status of the meter as D code, then said meter reader has disclosed that his meter is not working and required to be changed and also disclosed that he has intimated RA of concerned office for the same. The complainant had further received bill dated 01.03.2019 of reading from 06.02.2019 to 01.03.2019 of 538 units for Rs.4253/-. OPs have further issued bill dated 03.07.2019 for the period of 06.05.2019 to 03.07.2019 of 1024 units for Rs.40,551/-. But in the said bill, the OPs have demanded sundry charges to the tune of Rs.23876/-illegally and arbitrarily.  He approached OPs in this regard but OPs asked him to deposit Rs.8352/- out of the disputed amount, but failed to set aside the sundry charges of Rs.23876/-. The OPs are adamant to charge excess money unlawfully from him. Ex.C-1 is copy of death certificate of Harkirt Singh. Ex.C-2 is copy of Aadhar Card of Hardip Singh.  Ex.C-3 is copy of payment receipt.  Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 are copies of bill history. Ex.C-6 is copy of bill dated 29.12.2017 for payment of Rs.10640/- and Ex.C-7 is copy of payment receipt thereof. Ex.C-8 is copy of bill dated 05.03.2018 for payment of Rs.5310/- and Ex.C-9 is copy of receipt thereof. Ex.C-10 is copy of bill dated 05.07.2018 for payment of Rs. 1730/- and Ex.C-11 is copy of payment receipt thereof.  Ex.C-12 is copy of bill dated 30.08.2018 for payment of Rs.590/- and Ex.C-13 is copy of receipt thereof.  Ex.C-14 is copy of bill dated 08.05.2018 for payment of Rs.3920/- and Ex.C-15 is copy of payment receipt thereof.  Ex.C-16 is copy of bill dated 30.10.2018 for payment of Rs.1610/- and Ex.C-17 is copy of payment receipt thereof.  Ex.C-18 is copy of bill dated 03.07.2019 for payment of Rs.40680/-. Ex.C-20 is receipt for payment of Rs.8282/-. Ex.CW-1/B is rejoinder affidavit of complainant. Ex.C-21 is copy of death certificate of Harkirt Singh. Ex.C-22 and Ex.C-23 are bill receipts.

5.       To refute this evidence of the complainant, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Tarwinder Singh SDO/AE Rahon on the record. This witness stated that electric meter was found defective in November 2018. Electric meter was changed over on 18.02.2019, vide MCO No. 14/98104 dated 05.02.2019. Meter was changed, packed and sealed in the presence of complainant but he refused to sign the presence sheet. Meter was sent to ME Lab Goraya through store challan no.3 dated 10.05.2019 and meter was checked in the presence of XEN Enforcement Nawanshahr AE of ME Lab Goraya SDO PSPCL Rahon.  During checking, it was found that meter bearing serial no.493644 of complainant was burnt. During audit of month March 2019, Audit Party overhauled the account of the complainant for six months i.e.   for the months 07/18, 09/18 and 11/18 as per instruction no.21.5.2 of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual of 2018. The audit party revised and changed the amount of Rs.23,756/- for consumption of 6 months through half margin no. 217 dated 12.03.2019. Then bill-cum-show cause notice served to the complainant and asked him to deposit the revised bill of Rs.23,756/-vide memo no. 1035 dated 10.06.2019 and complainant was asked to raise objection, if any within 15 days but no objections were raised by complainant within stipulated period. Therefore, the amount of Rs.23,756/- charged for consumption of six months is legal and valid. Ex.OP-1 is copy of order regarding restoration of electricity connection. Ex.OP-2 is copy of store challan. Ex.OP-3 is copy of electricity regulations. Ex.OP-4 is copy of letter date 10.06.2019. Ex.OP-5 is copy of letter dated 12.03.2019.

6.       From perusal of entire evidence on the record and  after hearing respective submissions of counsel for the parties, it is an established fact that the complainant Hardip Singh being beneficiary of electric connection bearing no.N45CF320163Y and paying the regular consumption bills to OPs time to time without any default. OPs have issued various bills to complainant time to time and he had paid the amounts of the said bills to OPs.He was received consumption in the year 2018 i.e. bill issued on 06.03.2018 to the tune of Rs.5310/-,08.06.2018 to the tune of Rs.3920/-,05.07.2018 to the tune of Rs.1730/-, 30.08.2018 to the tune of Rs.590/-, 30.10.2018 to the tune of Rs.1610/-. The complainant had further received the bill dated 01.01.2019  for the period of 31.10.2018 to 01.01.2019 for Rs.3779/- of consumption of 483 units.  In the said bill, status of meter was shown a ‘D’. At the time of reading of the said bill, aforesaid Hardip Singh has asked to the meter reader regarding status of meter as ‘D’ code, then, the said  meter reader has disclosed that his meter is not working OK and required to be charged and also disclosed that he has intimated R.A of concerned office for the same.  He has also received bill dated 01.03.2019 of reading from 06.02.2019 to 01.03.2019 of 538 units for Rs.4253/-. The status of the meter is mentioned ‘F’ code. OPs have issued a bill dated 03.07.2019, for the period of 06.05.2019 to 03.07.2019 of 1024 units for 40,551/-. The status in said bill is ‘O’. But in the said bill, the OPs have demanded sundry charges to the tune of Rs.23876/- illegally and arbitrarily. He requested OPs several times to set aside the amount of the sundry charges, but of no use.

7.       On the other hand, OPs refute all allegations leveled by complainant in the complaint.    In the present case, stay order has already been granted by this Forum vide order dated 07.08.2019. As per this order, complainant is directed to deposit 50% of the amount of disputed amount minus already deposited with OPs within 7 days and OPs were restrained from disconnection of electricity connection in question.

8.       The main question of controversy  involved in this case is that the demand of sundry charges of OPs is genuine or not? From perusal of entire bills issued to complainant by OPs, it is crystal clear that the bills issued to complainant as per consumption consumed by him except bill dated 03.07.2019 for the period 06.05.2019 to 03.07.2019 of 1024 units for Rs.40,551/-. In the said bill, OPs have demanded sundry charges to the tune of Rs.23876/-, which is illegal and arbitrary. The complainant has already deposited Rs.8252/- on the demand of OPs but OPs failed to set aside the demand of sundry charges of Rs.23876/-. OPs are adamant to charge excess money unlawfully from the complainant, which is against rules  and regulations of PSPCL. The complainant approached office of OPs various times in this regard but OPs failed to do so. The OPs pleaded in the complaint that meter was changed, packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant but he refused to sign the presence sheet. They also pleaded that meter was sent to ME Lab Gorayavide store challan no.3 dated 10.05.2019 and meter was checked in the presence of XEN Enforcement Nawanshahr, AE or ME Lab Goraya , SDO PSPCL Rahon and they also pleaded that during checking, meter was found burnt. But OPs have not taken the consent of the complainant. Meter sent to Goraya for checking and the same was opened and checked in the absence of complainant, which is against the rules of PSPCL & Electricity Supply Instruction Manual. The presence of complainant is necessary when meter checked and opened. OPs also packed and sealed the meter in the absence of complainant.  

9.       In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and bill in dispute dated 03.07.2019 for demand of Rs.23,876/- is hereby set aside/quashed. The amount if any, deposited by the complainant earlier in compliance of the stay order be adjusted/deducted while raising the fresh bills. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.2000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation.

10.              The compliance of above said be made by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt copy of this order.    

11.              Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated: 09.01.2020

                               (Kanwaljeet Singh)              (Kuljit Singh)

                                       Member                        President