PER:
Varinder Pal Singh Saini Member,
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 34, 35 and 36 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against the opposite party on the allegations that the complainant is son of deceased Pal Singh son of Dalip Singh in whose name one Domestic electricity connection having account No. T64KL341517X is installed in the house of the complainant and due to some unavoidable circumstances, the connection could not be transferred in his name after the death of his father Pal Singh. The complainant had been paying regular bills of electricity consumption to the opposite party and as such, is the actual consumer of the opposite party after Pal Singh. The complainant received one electricity bill in the month of June 26,000/- from the complainant which was over and above the actual consumption of the complainant, so the complainant approached the opposite party and moved an application for correction of the bill, so the opposite party marked the application to Bhupinder Singh lineman who gave the report regarding the actual reading on the electricity meter and on the basis of report of lineman, the bill of the complainant was corrected and the complainant paid the actual consumption amount to the opposite party. The opposite party again demanded the same amount from the complainant in the subsequent bill and the complainant again approached the opposite party and the opposite party told the complainant that the meter is defective and it will change the meter of the complainant but the complainant told the opposite party that the meter is in good working condition and is not defective rather meter reader of the opposite party is mentioning wrong reading in the bills the reason best known to him. Moreover, the opposite party also marked the electricity meter with “D” Code i.e. the meter is defective without taking any report from any JE and after mentioning “D” Code the opposite party changed the meter of the complainant without informing him and also without following the procedure laid down for the same. The complainant again approached the opposite party when the opposite party demanded Rs. 66,260/- from the complainant vide bill dated 14.4.2020 for requesting the opposite party to correct the bill and after obtaining report from JE concerned, the bill of the complainant was corrected and Rs. 19,320/- demanded from him after correction which was paid by the complainant to the opposite party immediately. The complainant was again astonished when he received bill dated 21.6.2021 whereby again the opposite party demanded Rs. 57,540/- as arrears inspite of the fact that previous bill was corrected by it after following laid procedure so the complainant again approached the opposite party regarding it and the opposite party told the complainant that the account of the complainant is not yet corrected in the computer network of the opposite party as such the above mentioned amount again demanded from him and the demand of the complainant will be recalled so the complainant on the assurance of the opposite party deposited the consumption amount of the electricity to the opposite party and awaited for correction for account of the complainant of the computer network of the opposite party. The complainant has prayed the following relieves:
- The opposite party may kindly be directed to withdraw the electricity bill for an amount of Rs. 57,540/- as arrears vide bill dated 4.6.2021.
- The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1, self attested copy of Bill dated 18.6.2019Ex. C-2, Self attested copy of bill dated 14.4.2020 Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of payment receipt dated 15.6.2020 Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of Bill dated 4.6.2021 Ex. C-5.
2 Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite party and opposite party appeared through counsel and has filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this commission and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. The complainant has misrepresented and is also guilty of concealment of material and true facts. The complainant has mislead and withheld material facts from this commission and presented a concocted story. The complaint is not maintainable in the present from as the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party. The complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party as the connection in question is in the name of Pal Singh son of Dalip Singh. No declaration or proof has been placed on record by the complainant that he is the L.R. of deceased Pal Singh. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and above all the complainant has created false documents in order to achieve the ulterior motive and further has consumed the electricity as per his consumption and has paid the amount and the period when the meter was dead the opposite party has charged the bill for the average consumption of the power consumed by the complainant in the previous year. The complainant has presented the present complaint with concocted facts just in order to mislead and gain monetary benefit from this commission without any right, title. Huge amount is still outstanding towards he complainant which is not paid till today. The complainant has not placed on record any succession certificate of inheritance of deceased Pal Singh. The complainant consumed 2921 units of electricity in the billing circle of April 2019 and as per the consumption bill was issued to the complainant and status of the meter was also ok at that time and in the billing circle of February 2019 the outstanding billing amount is Rs. 30,310/- and the complainant has deposited only part payment and thereafter in the billing circle of April 2019 an outstanding amount of Rs. 25,590/- was issued to the complainant and in the billing circle of June 2019 complainant consumed 50 units as the complainant has not deposited the previous amount as such, in the billing circle bill for Rs. 26,770/- were charged. Thereafter, as per the status given in the reading of billing circle August 2019, October 2019, December 2019, February 2020, April 2020, June 2020 and August 2020 the meter code was shown as D code as per the report of meter reader, except June 2020 no reading was effected due to Nation vide Lockdown due to COVID 19 and during that period also the complainant has not paid the entire outstanding amount and thereafter in October 2020 reading code shows C and thereafter December 2020 shows OK. During the while period the complainant has not paid the entire outstanding amount in the said account. The alleged submission of complainant regarding giving complaint to any official of the PSPCL is without any documentary proof as no complaint was moved nor marked to any officials as the alleged complaint does not bear any number specifically Diary number nor any report was received by of any officials regarding the alleged submission and the alleged story to correct the bill of complainant is created one and as per the consumption the complainant has paid the requisite bill on the basis of his actual consumption. The complainant did not clear the entire electricity bill as per the actual consumption or as per the actual bill sent to the complainant. The opposite party is not demanding any extra amount as only the consumed units by the complainant. The bill of Rs. 57,540/- is rightly demanded from the complainant as an arrears. Up to August 2021 Rs. 62,060/- is ending towards his account No. T64-KL34-1517X which is still pending. The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of opposite party Ex. OP1, attested copy of order to challenge the mater having D Code Ex. OP-2, Attested copy of details of account No. T64-KL34-1517X show the outstanding amount Ex. OP3.
3 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.
4 Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is son of deceased Pal Singh son of Dalip Singh in whose name one domestic electricity connection having account No. T64KL341517X is installed in the house of the complainant and due to some unavoidable circumstances, the connection could not be transferred in his name after the death of his father Pal Singh. He further contended that the complainant had been paying regular bills of electricity consumption to the opposite party and. The complainant received one electricity bill in the month of June 26,000/- from the complainant which was over and above the actual consumption of the complainant, so the complainant approached the opposite party and moved an application for correction of the bill, so the opposite party marked the application to Bhupinder Singh lineman who gave the report regarding the actual reading on the electricity meter and on the basis of report of lineman, the bill of the complainant was corrected and the complainant paid the actual consumption amount to the opposite party. The opposite party again demanded the same amount from the complainant in the subsequent bill and the complainant again approached the opposite party and the opposite party told the complainant that the meter is defective and it will change the meter of the complainant but the complainant told the opposite party that the meter is in good working condition and is not defective rather of the meter reader of the opposite party is mentioning wrong reading in the bills the reason best known to him. The opposite party also marked the electricity meter with “D” Code i.e. the meter is defective without taking any report from any JE and after mentioning “D” Code the opposite party changed the meter of the complainant without informing him and also without following the procedure laid down for the same. He further contended that the complainant again approached the opposite party when the opposite party demanded Rs. 66,260/- from the complainant vide bill dated 14.4.2020 for requesting the opposite party to correct the bill and after obtaining report from JE concerned, the bill of the complainant was corrected and Rs. 19,320/- demanded from him after correction which was paid by the complainant to the opposite party immediately. He further contended that the complainant was again astonished when he received bill dated 21.6.2021 whereby again the opposite party demanded Rs. 57,540/- as arrears inspite of the fact that previous bill was corrected by it after following laid procedure so the complainant again approached the opposite party regarding it and the opposite party told the complainant that the account of the complainant is not yet corrected in the computer network of the opposite party as such the above mentioned amount again demanded from him and the demand of the complainant will be recalled so the complainant on the assurance of the opposite party deposited the consumption amount of the electricity to the opposite party and awaited for correction for account of the complainant of the computer network of the opposite party and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.
5 Ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that the complainant has not come to this commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this commission and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. The complainant has misrepresented and is also guilty of concealment of material and true facts. The complainant has mislead and withheld material facts from this commission and presented a concocted story. The complaint is not maintainable in the present from as the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party. He further contended that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party as the connection in question is in the name of Pal Singh son of Dalip Singh. No declaration or proof has been placed on record by the complainant that he is the L.R. of deceased Pal Singh. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and above all the complainant has created false documents in order to achieve the ulterior motive and further has consumed the electricity as per his consumption and has paid the amount and the period when the meter was dead the opposite party has charged the bill for the average consumption of the power consumed by the complainant in the previous year. The complainant has presented the present complaint with concocted facts just in order mislead and gain monetary benefit from this commission without any right, title. Huge amount is still outstanding towards he complainant which is not paid till today. The complainant has not placed on record any succession certificate of inheritance of deceased Pal Singh. He further contended that the complainant consumed 2921 units of electricity in the billing circle of April 2019 and as per the consumption bill was issued to the complainant and status of the meter was also ok at that time and in the billing circle of February 2019 the outstanding billing amount is Rs. 30,310/- and the complainant has deposited only part payment and thereafter in the billing circle of April 2019 an outstanding amount of Rs. 25,590/- was issued to the complainant and in the billing circle of June 2019 complainant consumed 50 units as the complainant has not deposited the previous amount as such, in the billing circle bill for Rs. 26,770/- were charged. Thereafter, as per the status given in the reading of billing circle August 2019, October 2019, December 2019, February 2020, April 2020, June 2020 and August 2020 the meter code was shown as D code as per the report of meter reader, except June 2020 no reading was effected due to Nation vide Lockdown due to COVID 19 and during that period also the complainant has not paid the entire outstanding amount and thereafter in October 2020 reading code shows C and thereafter December 2020 shows OK. During the while period the complainant has not paid the entire outstanding amount in the said account. The alleged submission of complainant regarding giving complaint to any official of the PSPCL is without any documentary proof as no complaint was moved nor marked to any officials as the alleged complaint does not bear any number specifically Diary number nor any report was received by of any officials regarding the alleged submission and the alleged story to correct the bill of complainant is created one and as per the consumption the complainant has paid the requisite bill on the basis of his actual consumption. He further contended that the complainant did not clear the entire electricity bill as per the actual consumption or as per the actual bill sent to the complainant. The opposite party is not demanding any extra amount as only the consumed units by the complainant. The bill of Rs. 57,540/- is rightly demanded from the complainant as an arrears. Up to August 2021 Rs. 62,060/- is ending towards he account No. T64-KL34-1517X which is still pending and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.
6 We have carefully gone through the rival contentions of the respective parties.
7 The first objection of the opposite party that the meter is running in the name of Pal Singh and the complainant is not consumer of the opposite party. However, Pal Singh has since died and the complainant is son of Pal Singh and is using the electricity connection and is paying the electricity charges to the opposite party as such, the complainant is beneficiary of the connection in dispute, and the complainant is consumer of the opposite party.
8 The stand of the opposite party that the bill has been issued to the complainant on the basis of consumption made by the complainant. To prove their contention, the opposite party has placed on record consumption data Ex. OP3 which shows the status of meter OK for the period mentioned below and consumption of electricity in the month of Feb 2018 as 153 units, in the month of April 2018 as 50 units, in the month of June 2018 as 171 units, in the month of August 2018 as 121 units, in the month of October 2018 as 110 units, in the month of December 2018 as 149 units, in the month of June 2019 as 50 units, in the month of December 2020 as 169 units. On bare reading of consumption data, it reveals that when the status of meter was OK mostly the consumption was maximum 171 units i.e. in the session of Summer (June 2018). Therefore consumption of 2921 units in the month of April 2019 and 3359 units in the month of February 2020 is beyond imagination. The opposite party has not placed on record any document in support of 2921 units in the month of April 2019, like ME report and meter data down load report from where it can be verified that consumer consumed 2921 units in the month of April 2019.
9 Moreover, the bare reading of consumption data Ex. OP3 shows that the opposite party charged average of 3359 units in the month of April 2020 which is arbitrary because no such huge consumption ever been recorded in the previous years in the same month when the meter status was OK. Furthermore, the consumption data Ex. OP3 shows that the opposite party is sending the bill on average basis from August 2019 to August 2020 and same is again against the regulations 2007 and in support of this observation, we like to made reliance upon a pronouncement of our Hon'ble State Commission, cited in 2003(1) C. P. C. 310, titled as “Shingara Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Another”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-
“ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 15 & 12, Electricity bill, amount of electricity bill was demanded from 1997 to 1999 on average basis, It is now settled law that maximum period for which bill can be raised in respect of a defective meter under Electricity Act is 6 months and no more, Order of District Forum quashed, Case remanded for fresh decision keeping into view above mentioned observations.”
10 In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds and the same is hereby allowed with costs in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party. The Bill dated 4.6.2021 Ex. C-5 is quashed. However, the opposite party is at liberty to recover the consumption charges of the disputed period from the complainant on average basis of corresponding months of previous years (2017-2018) and proceeding years (2021, 2022) when the meter status is ‘OK’. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite party for a long time, consequently, the complainant is also entitled to 7,500/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses. Opposite Party is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Commission
19.03.2024
