DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No. 479 of 2016                                         Date of institution:  11.08.2016                                         Date of decision   :  07.11.2017

Kalu Ram son of Late Sardari Lal, resident of House No.1405, Amb Sahib Colony, Sector 65, Mohali.

                             ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Operation Division, Mohali through Sub Divisional Engineer, PSPCL (Operation) Sub Division, Sohana.

                                                       ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of   

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Shri Pankaj Sharma, counsel for the OP.

ORDER

By Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

                The complainant filed the present complaint pleading that he is a poor labourer/citizen of India having only two bulbs and one ceiling fan in his very small house for which he was receiving electricity bills of Rs.300-400. He further alleged that he was stunned to receive the bills of Rs.19,290/- for two months (copy of bill is annexed as C-1) and he challenged the same as he was unable to pay with a request to summon the officials at fault to clarify the position for raising the bill to such a high amount and requested for relief.

2.             After service of notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and filed reply taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction; complaint is false, frivolous and thus liable to be dismissed; the present complaint is infructuous as the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been rectified by the OP. On merits, the OP denied all the allegations stating that on the request of the complainant, in the month of February, 2014 the old burnt meter of the complainant had been replaced on with new electricity meter and the new meter reading started with 0 reading. After that the complainant had been depositing bills on tentative reading basis on ‘I’ code upto 26.03.2016. The complainant never objected to the bills issued by the OP and had never approached for rectification of bills after replacement of old burnt meter. In the bill dated 28.05.2016 the complainant account was overhauled for the period 25.03.2016 to 28.05.2016 in which actual reading recorded as on 28.05.2015 was 3118 units which was taken into account to compile the bill and the tentative readings were adjusted from the actual consumption and thus the actual bill for ‘O’ code for the overall reading was got generated and delivered to the complainant which the complainant failed to deposit. The complainant has referred to the bill issued on 01.08.2016 in which the bill generated upto 28.05.2016 has been included as arrear bill to the tune of Rs.16,538/-  as not deposited by the complainant. The total outstanding against the complainant is Rs.19,328/- upto reading date of 01.08.2016 and the complainant had deposited the last payment of bill as on 06.04.2016 for Rs.310/-.  Lastly the OP has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of bills Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2. In rebuttal, the counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Er. Harbhajan Singh Kang its SDO Ex.OP-1/1; copies of MCOP Ex.OP-1; tentative reading details Ex.OP-2; bill dated 27.03.2016 Ex.OP-3; payment details Ex.OP-4; bill dated 28.05.2016 Ex.OP-5 and bill dated 24.01.2017 Ex.OP-6

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and counsel for the OP and gone through the record. We held that the complainant is consumer of the OP as he is availing services of the OP for consideration. As the relief claimed by the complainant is less than Rs. Twenty Lakhs, so this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction and similarly as cause of action arose within the revenue estate of this District, so this District Forum has territorial jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate upon this matter. Further the preliminary objection taken by the OP that this Forum has no jurisdiction as the complainant is duty bound to approach the Dispute Redressal Committee constituted in the Act, 2003 in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) because remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) is in addition to other remedies available to consumers.

6.             On merits, it is observed that the complainant is paying the bills received by him from the OP. As the complainant is paying the bills on time as per demand of the OP, so the OP cannot take a stand that the complainant never objected to the bills issued by PSPCL Ltd. on tentative reading basis and he never approached for rectification of bills after replacement of old burnt meter. The OP is duty bound to send the correct bills to the complainant and if the OP failed to do so, then it amounts to deficiency in service on its part on account of providing wrong bills.  Moreover, in Para No.3 of preliminary objections, the OP has pleaded that the complaint is infructuous as the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been rectified by the OP.  Thus, the OP has specifically admitted deficiency in service on its part by stating that it has been rectified by the OP. So rectification of deficiency does not absolve the OP from the liability but entitles the complainant to seek compensation for the same within two years of limitation from the date of cause of action as per provisions of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date). The burden of proving the complaint is upon the complainant which never shifts but onus of proof keep on shifting on the parties. In the present complaint, the complainant discharged his burden by placing on record copies of bills which are Ex.C-1 and C-2. Now the onus of proof shifted upon the OP as the OP is in possession of entire record of matter concerned. From record, it is clear that the OP issued wrong bills to the complainant and complainant proved the same. The OP failed to send correct bills to the complainant besides being duty bound to send the correct bills. At later stage, the OP rectified its mistake as admitted in Para No.3 of preliminary objections of reply to the complaint but the fact remains the same that complainant is entitled to compensation for deficiency even if the OP rectified the mistake at later stage. Though the OP is entitled to recover the outstanding amount from the complainant,  yet it is liable to pay compensation to complainant for sending wrong amount of bills which is deficiency in service as per Consumer Law.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that the complainant is entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand only) on account of mental agony, harassment and  litigation cost. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.            

                The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.

                The order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 07.11.2017

                                              (A.P.S.Rajput)
 President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member