BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 71 of 2015
Date of institution: 20.02.2015
Date of Decision: 26.04.2016
Lt. Col. Ranvir Singh son of Sub Tripat Singh (Retd.) r/o Flat No.D-701, AWHO Sispal Vihar, Sector 49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon.
……..Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation through SDO, PSEB Office, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Alok Bhatara, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Ashok Sharma, counsel for the OP alongwith
Shri Sumit Kumar, Revenue Accountant of the OP.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:
(a) to make adjustment of complete bills and all outstanding dues from the date of installation of meter till vacation of flat by the tenant in October, 2013.
(b) to levy only essential service charges.
(c) to install fully tested and functional meter immediately.
(d) to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.1,81,500/- on account of loss of rent from November, 2013 onwards which would have reduced his EMI burden for the home loan taken by the complainant.
(e) to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges.
The case of the complainant is that he is having flat No.202, 3rd Floor, Tower-I, Spangle Condos, Vill. Ghazipur, Zirakpur (Mohali). After taking over the possession of the flat on 11.11.2011, the complainant got installed electricity meter in the flat in December, 2011 under DS category and the connected load was 10.98 K.W. The flat was given by the complainant on rent to one Jaswant Jamwal w.e.f. December, 2011 at a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-. The electricity bill which was due in February 2012 was not delivered or received by the tenant. The bill, however, for the first time was received on 19.04.2012 which was for the period from 16.02.2012 to 19.04.2012 and the amount of the bill was Rs.39,020/- which also showed the arrear of Rs.21,632/-. In the next bill for the period from 19.04.2012 to 20.06.2012the consumption of electricity was shown as 1651 units and in the next bill from 20.06.2012 to 17.08.2012 the consumption was shown as 706 units. After repeated requests the faulty meter was replaced by the OP on 21.08.2012. The meter which was removed from the flat of the complainant was tested in the Laboratory at Ropar on 27.11.2012 and during testing it was found to be running fast even without putting load. After installation of new meter, bills dated 10.10.2012, 28.12.2012, 17.02.2013 were received in which consumption of units was mentioned as 233, 381 and 272 units and the amount of these bills was mentioned as Rs.66,240/-, Rs.81,330/- and Rs.1,00,010/- respectively which included arrears of Rs.56,239/- reflected in bill of 10.10.2012. The tenant of the complainant had deposited Rs.25,500/- in March, 2013 and thereafter another bill dated 18.04.2013 was received which showed consumption of 307 units on the basis of old and new reading which was wrongly calculated as 2821 units. In this bill some amount was adjusted and the due amount was shown to be Rs.32,220/-. The problem of overbilling was observed in the bills received thereafter. Even in the bills there was mismatch of meter number and its working status. In April, 2013 the display panel of the meter became unreadable and this defect was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities by the tenant of the complainant. The another bill was received on 27.08.2013 after a gap of four months which showed dues of Rs.52,800/-. The tenant approached the SDO of the OP for replacement of the meter and on advice, the tenant deposited a sum of Rs.6,000/- on 11.10.2013. Thus, a total amount of Rs.31,500/- was deposited with the OP. The faulty meter was replaced on 11.10.2013 but it also became non functional after two days i.e. on 13.10.2013 as its display also became unreadable. The next bill which was received on 25.10.2013, an amount of Rs.41,190/- was shown as due. Due to these troubles and deficiencies, the tenant vacated the flat of the complainant on 28.10.2013. After continuous follow up the faulty meter was again replaced third time on 27.12.2013. The complainant has not rented out the flat after 28.10.2013 but the increased bills were continued to be received by the complainant from the OP. The meter was again removed on 24.01.2014 but the extra amount charged from the complainant has not been adjusted. The complainant had requested to OP to make necessary adjustment of the bills but till date the OP has not taken any action on the repeated requests of the complainant. Thus, with these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. The OP in the preliminary objections of the written statement has pleaded that this Forum has no jurisdiction as the complainant is bound to approach the Disputes Redressal Committee constituted under the Act, 2003. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The electricity bills were issued to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption as per the calculations made under LDHF Formula. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant has never informed the OP about the tenancy of the flat. The complainant challenged his electricity meter which was sent to ME Lab. Ropar and the complainant was duly informed about the status of the meter report and as per the report of ME Lab, the OP refunded the amount to the complainant. The jumping of particular circle of the meter is a concocted story by the complainant. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-9/A.
4. Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Er. M.P. Singh, Addl. S.E. Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-4.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments filed by them.
6. The complainant is subscriber to the electricity connection from the OP since 2011 under DS category with a connected load of 10.98 KW. Since December, 2011 till 19.04.2012 the complainant never received any electricity consumption bill and the bill for the period 16.02.2012 to 19.04.2012 received on 19.04.2012 and subsequent bills dated 20.06.2012 and 17.08.2012 on the ground that the meter is faulty showing excessive units of consumption. The faulty meter was removed by the OP on 21.08.2012 and alternative temporary meter was installed at the premises of the complainant. The faulty meter so removed from the premises of the complainant was got tested from the M.E. Lab. Ropar by the OP and finally it was found to be a faulty meter. Thereafter, the OP installed a new proper and effective permanent meter at the premises of the complainant on 11.10.2013. After installation of the new meter the complainant has no grievance whatsoever.
7. The limited question of dispute in the present complaint is regarding the excessive units consumption shown in the bills dated 19.04.2012, 20.06.2012 and 17.08.2012 showing the actual consumption bill on the basis of reading in a faulty meter and arrears due. The last disputed bill dated 17.08.2012 showing consumption of 706 units and payment of due amount of Rs.55,790/- which includes arrears of the previous bills.
8. It is a fact that when the OP has issued bills dated 19.04.2012, 20.06.2012 and 17.08.2012 the electricity meter was faulty and this fact has been duly corroborated by the M.E. Lab report of the OP. Due to faulty meter the complainant cannot be put to any financial loss. Therefore, during the course of proceedings, it was agreed between the parties to resolve the matter amicably by issuance of correct bill as per actual consumption of electricity bills and application of correct formula for charging the amount for the units reflected for the period under disputed bills. The OP has admitted during the course of proceedings that the amount shown in the bills has been calculated as per the LDHF formula which is applicable to the burnt electricity meters and not faulty meters. Subsequently, the account of the electricity connection of the complainant has clarified and modified as per the applicable formula for faulty meter in the records of the OP and the excess amount, if any, has been adjusted in the future bills of the complainant. Complainant being satisfied with the efforts made during the course of proceedings by the OP, at the time of arguments, has limited his prayer for compensation for harassment and mental agony which he has faced due to the acts of omission and commission of the OP.
9. Since it is admitted fact that the OP has raised the electricity bill by calculating the wrong formula as applicable for the burnt meter whereas the case of the complainant was of a faulty meter and it took four long years for the OP to rectify their mistake and that too when the complainant has approached this Forum, certainly the amount of mental agony and harassment the complainant has faced cannot ignored by the common prudence. The complainant having suffered mental agony and harassment and undue litigation, deserves to be adequately and fairly compensated as has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission in Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 that the compensation should be commensurate with the loss and injury suffered by the complainant.
10. In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OP to:
(a) pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
April 26, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
