Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/282

Kewal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

15 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :       282

Date of Institution : 3.10.2016

Date of Decision :   15.05.2017

Kewal Singh aged about 53 years s/o Mukhtiar Singh, r/o House No.B-12/21A, Opposite D C Residence, New Harindra Nagar, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

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

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, 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 correct the bill dated 16.09.2016 and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                            Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having DS electric connection bearing a/c no. HN-99/0762 (old) and 3000388542 (new) running in his premises and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards  him. It is contended that complainant received a bill dt 21.09.2015 for the period 11.11.2014 to 21.09.2015 for 8790 units. After adjustment the net bill was issued for Rs.22,360/- and complainant paid the same on 6.10.2015. After that complainant received bill in November, 2015 for Rs.25,860/-, which included Rs.15,160/-as arrears of previous bill and current bill was for Rs.10,700/-. Complainant paid the current bill on 7.12.2015 and Ops assured to correct the bill, but he again received bill in January, 2016 for Rs.22,100/-which also included the amount of Rs.15,430/- as arrears. Complainant again visited Ops and requested them to correct the same and after verification got deposited the current bill for Rs.6,670/- on 5.02.2016. After that, complainant has been continuously receiving the bills showing arrears  and OP-2 gets deposited the current bill as he received the bills for March, May and July, 2016 including arrears. Complainant again received bill dated 16.09.2016 for 1173 units for Rs.26,540/-including arrears of 17,741/-and Rs.241/-as adjustment. After receiving this excessive bill, complainant again approached Ops and requested them to correct the same, but all in vain. Action of OPs in not allowing him to deposit the current charges and threatening him for disconnection amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs5,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                        Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 10.10.2016, 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 taking preliminary objections that OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and connection in question is being used for commercial purpose and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that amount in question is due and recoverable from complainant and bill for present amount on the basis of units consumed was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the said amount but he did not deposit the same. It is averred that bills for September, 2014 and November, 2014 were sent to complainant and there is no dispute regarding these two bills. Bills for February, 2015 and April, 2015 were sent to complainant on average basis as reading was not taken and amount of all these four bills i.e 2/2015, 4/2015, 6/2015 and 8/2015 was reversed and amount deposited by complainant against these four bills was kept intact and adjusted. Bill for October/2015 was sent for 304 days for 8790 units for Rs.64038, in which amount already deposited was duly adjusted. Thereafter, bills for 11/2015, 01/2016, 3/2016, 5/2016, 7/2016, 9/2016 and 11/2016 were sent to complainant on actual consumption as per rules and are correct. In bill for 10/2015, Rs.37517/- was due from complainant, complainant deposited Rs.22360/- on 6.10.2015 and Rs.15157/- was due, which were charged in bill of 11/2015. Amount of Rs.15157/- due towards complainant was added in bill dated 11/2015, amount of Rs,15672/- due was carried to the bill for 3/2016, due amount of Rs.28271/-was added in bill 5/2016 and sum of Rs.18203/-due towards complainant were added in bill dt 16/ 9/2016. Similarly, amount due towards was complainant was used to be added in next bills after adjustment of amount deposited by him. After making adjustments, amount of Rs.19,742/-was due towards complainant and it was added in bill dt 17.11.2016. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                    Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 12 and closed the same.

6                                      In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Chunish Jain as Ex OP-15 and documents Ex OP-1 to 14 and then, evidence of OPs was closed by order of this Forum.

7                                     We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

8                                      The ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is having DS electric connection bearing a/c no. HN-99/0762 (old) and 3000388542 (new) running in his premises and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards  him. It is contended that complainant received a bill dt 21.09.2015 for the period 11.11.2014 to 21.09.2015 for 8790 units. After adjustment the net bill was issued for Rs.22,360/- and complainant paid the same on 6.10.2015. After that complainant received bill in November, 2015 for Rs.25,860/-, which included Rs.15,160/-as arrears of previous bill and current bill was for Rs.10,700/-. Complainant paid the current bill on 7.12.2015 and Ops assured to correct the bill, but he again received bill in January, 2016 for Rs.22,100/-which also included the amount of Rs.15,430/- as arrears. Complainant again visited Ops and requested them to correct the same and after verification got deposited the current bill for Rs.6,670/- on 5.02.2016. After that, complainant has been continuously receiving the bills showing arrears  and OP-2 gets deposited the current bill as he received the bills for March, May and July, 2016 including arrears. Complainant again received bill dated 16.09.2016 for 1173 units for Rs.26,540/-including arrears of 17,741/-and Rs.241/-as adjustment. After receiving this excessive bill, complainant again approached Ops and requested them to correct the same, but all in vain. Action of OPs in not allowing him to deposit the current charges and threatening him for disconnection, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great harassment to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litgation expenses besides the main relief.

9                                          To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of  consumer. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this case. The Ops have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees and complainant should approach such committees to settle his dispute and moreover, complainant is not their consumer and connection in question is being used for commercial purpose and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is asserted that amount in question is due and recoverable from complainant and bill in question was sent to complainant for power consumed by him. Ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that amount in question is due and recoverable from complainant and bill for present amount on the basis of units consumed was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the said amount but he did not deposit the same. It is averred that bills for September, 2014 and November, 2014 were sent to complainant and there is no dispute regarding these two bills. Bills for February, 2015 and April, 2015 were sent to complainant on average basis as reading was not taken and amount of all these four bills i.e 2/2015, 4/2015, 6/2015 and 8/2015 was reversed and amount deposited by complainant against these four bills was kept intact and adjusted. Bill for October/2015 was sent for 304 days for 8790 units for Rs.64038, in which amount already deposited was duly adjusted. Thereafter, bills for 11/2015, 01/2016, 3/2016, 5/2016, 7/2016, 9/2016 and 11/2016 were sent to complainant on actual consumption as per rules and are correct. In bill for 10/2015, Rs.37517/- was due from complainant, complainant deposited Rs.22360/- on 6.10.2015 and Rs.15157/- was due, which were charged in bill of 11/2015. Amount of Rs.15157/- due towards complainant was added in bill dated 11/2015, amount of Rs,15672/- due was carried to the bill for 3/2016, due amount of Rs.28271/-was added in bill 5/2016 and sum of Rs.18203/-due towards complainant were added in bill dt 16/9/2016. Similarly, amount due towards was complainant was used to be added in next bills after adjustment of amount deposited by him. After making adjustments, amount of Rs.19,742/-was due towards complainant and it was added in bill dt 17.11.2016. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations are refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

10                                       The case of complainant is that he has been receiving excessive bills for last many months, in which arrears have been included, though no amount is due towards complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, Ops asserted that every time complainant deposits the current bill and amount due towards him on account of previous consumption charges is being added to further bills as arrears and they are liable to receive the same. 

11                                         Ld Counsel for Ops submitted that Ops issued bill for the month November/2014 upto the reading of 9535 units and complainant paid this bill. Thereafter, the bills for months 2/2015, 4/2015, 6/2015, 8/2015 were issued to complainant on average basis as meter status was  ‘N’ meaning thereby that reading was not taken. Thereafter, Ops issued bill for 10/2015 for 304 days for consumption of 8790 units i.e new reading 18325 old 9535 consumption  8790 units and after adjustment of amount paid by complainant for the bills of 2/2015 to 8/2015, the net payable amount was 37517/- and Ops issued bill for this amount but complainant paid only Rs.22360/-on 6.10.2015 against this bill and Rs.15157/-were still due out of bill of 10/2015 and this amount was charged in the bill 11/2015. The complainant did not pay this amount and this amount again included in the bill for 1/2016, 3/2016, 5/2016, 7/2016, 9/2016 and 11/2016 and he was called upon to pay this amount, but complainant paid only the actual consumption charges and did not pay the amount of arrears, which is still due towards him and Ops are entitled to recover this amount. Now, version of Ops is that the amount in dispute is due out of bill for month 10/2015. The complainant has produced copy of bill 10/2015 as Ex C-5 which is issued by Ops for 314 days i.e from 11.11.2014 to 21.09.2015 with old reading 9535 units and new reading 18325,  the consumption of 8790 units as alleged by Ops and after adjustment of amount earlier deposited by            complainant, they issued this bill for the amount of Rs.22360/-and admittedly, this amount is paid by complainant. now, the allegation of Ops that they issued this bill for Rs.37517/-have no footing as this bill was issued for Rs.22360/-, which is already paid by the complainant. Ops have failed to prove that arrear of Rs.15157/- remained due towards complainant out of bill for 10/2015 which is allegedly carried forward by them in the subsequent bills.

12                        From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that Ops have wrongly demanded the amount in dispute from complainant as arrears of bill 10/2015. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.17,741/-as arrears vide bill dated 16.09.2016. Ops are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.5000/-already deposited by complainant with Ops in compliance of order dated 10.10.2016 passed by this Forum in subsequent bills. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 15.05.2017

 

                                                    Member               President                                                               (P Singla)             (Ajit Aggarwal)