Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/177

Manjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

10 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :          177 of 2018

Date of Institution :       5.11.2018

Date of Decision :       10.06.2019

Manjit Kaur aged about 55 years w/o Swaranjit Singh r/o Dogar Basti, Main Road, Near Gali No.10 (L), 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 City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

              Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Mohan Singh Brar, 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 withdraw the demand of Rs.84,400/- raised vide bill dt 30.09.2018 and

cc no.-177 of 2018

for further directing them to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- to complainant.

2                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic supply electric connection bearing a/c no. 3000394750 and meter is installed outside her premises in meter cub board. It is submitted that complainant has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards her on account of consumption charges. It is submitted that complainant received a bill in the September, 2018 for Rs,11,400/- and she duly deposited the same on 17.09.2018. Thereafter, she received a bill dated 30.09.2018 for Rs.84,400/- for 9791 units for the period from 31.05.2018 to 30.09.2018 and in this bill amount of Rs.11,400/-already deposited by complainant,  has not been adjusted by Ops. This bill is for 122 days and includes the period for which he has already made payment and bill issued by OPs is quite excessive. On receiving the same, complainant approached Ops and requested them to withdraw the said bill as nothing is due towards her on account of consumption charges, but did not do anything needful. Complainant made several requests to Ops to withdraw the demand for excessive charges, but they refused to accede to her requests and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which she has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to set aside the demand of Rs.84,400/-raised vide bill dt 30.09.2018 and for

cc no.-177 of 2018

further directing them to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3                                               Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 6.11.2018, 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 wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted before the Forum that bill for Rs.11,400/-was deposited by complainant on 17.09.2018. It is also admitted that meter of complainant is installed in Meter Cup Board outside her premises. It is also admitted that bill dated 30.09.2018 for Rs.84,400/-for the period from 31.05.2018 to 30.09.2018 for 9791 units was issued by them. it is averred that bill dated 27.02.2018 showed the old reading of 18590 and new reading of 18599 units for Rs.4750/- and it included difference of tariff. Bill dated 29.03.2018 for the period from 25.01.2018 to 29.03.2018 showing old reading 8633 and new reading 8710 units and reading of new changed meter was 77 units. Old removed meter reading was 18599 and reading at the time of MCO was 18600  and in this way, bill for consumption of 78 units for Rs.912/- was issued. Arrear amount was Rs.5740/-and total bill was for Rs.6050/-. Bill was again issued on 13.06.2018 showing old

cc no.-177 of 2018

reading 8710 and new reading 9102 units, consumption of 392 units for the period from 29.03.2018 to 31.05.2018. Current bill was for Rs.9750/- i.e Rs.3284/-for current consumption and it also included previous arrear of Rs.6467/-. Next bill dt 12.08.2018 was for the period from 31.05.2018 to 12.08.2018 showing old reading 9102 units and new reading 9293 units, consumption of 191 units with P code and total bill was for Rs.11,270/-. Bill in dispute is for 122 days for the period from 31.05.2018 to 30.09.2018 showing old reading of 9102 and new reading of 18893 units, consumption of 9791 units. Current bill was issued for Rs.85,870/- and bill amount of Rs.1872/- plus Rs.25,000/-deposited by complainant was duly adjusted and after deducting the surcharge amount, balance due amount was Rs.59,206/- say Rs.39,210/-. It is admitted that meter of complainant is installed outside his premises in MCB, but fact that liability of proper maintenance of same is totally with Ops is entirely misconceived as no other person can be benefitted by interference in electric device by tampering the same. Amount charged is due towards complainant and he is liable to pay the same and Ops have every right to recover this amount from complainant. Complainant is not entitled to any compensation or relief. 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 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

cc no.-177 of 2018

tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 18 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-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-10 and closed the evidence.

7                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                               Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant  received a bill in the September, 2018 for Rs,11,400/- and she duly deposited the same on 17.09.2018. After that, she received a bill dated 30.09.2018 for Rs.84,400/- for 9791 units for the period from 31.05.2018 to 30.09.2018 and in this bill amount of Rs.11,400/-already deposited by complainant vide receipt dt 17.09.2018 Ex C-7,  has not been adjusted by Ops. This bill is for 122 days and it includes the period for which she has already made payment and bill issued by OPs is highly excessive and unlawful. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests, Ops have not corrected the bill dated 30.09.2018, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

cc no.-177 of 2018

9                                    Ld Counsel for Ops argued before the Forum that all the allegations levelled by complainant are wrong and incorrect but it is admitted by Ops that bill for Rs.11,400/-was deposited by complainant on 17.09.2018. It is also not denied that meter of complainant is installed in Meter Cup Board outside her premises. It is also admitted that bill dated 30.09.2018 for Rs.84,400/-for the period from 31.05.2018 to 30.09.2018 for 9791 units was issued by them. it is averred that bill dated 27.02.2018 showed the old reading of 18590 and new reading of 18599 units for Rs.4750/- and it included difference of tariff. Complainant has failed to pay this amount in time and therefore, it was added in bill dt 30.09.2018. All this amount is charged as per rules and complainant is liable to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10                                                Now, it is admitted case of the parties that complainant is consumer of OPs having electric connection in question. It is further admitted that Ops issued bill dated 30.09.2018 for Rs.84,400/-from 31.05.2018 to 30.09.2018 for 9791 units. Ld counsel for complainant has brought our attention towards documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-6 which are copies of bills issued by OPs for the period from January, 2018 to October 2018. Ex C-7 is copy of receipt dated 17.09.2018 that proves the pleadings of complainant that she paid Rs.11,400/- against bill dated 12.08.2018 and she has made payment for the entire period and nothing is due towards her. The version of the Ops is that the bill dated 30.09.2018 issued from 31.05.2018 to 30.09.2018

cc no.-177 of 2018

for 9791 units as previous reading 9109 and new reading 18893 and this bill is issued on the basis of actual consumption. On the other hand the ld counsel for complainant argued that this bill is issued on the basis of very high consumption. The complainant did not use this much excessive electricity. The average consumption of the complainant is about 500 to 1000 units per billing cycle and not more than it. This bill is not issued on the basis of correct consumption. Even the next bill is also only for 1800 units. The Ops wrongly recorded excessive consumption.

11                                        We have thoroughly gone through the file and pleadings and it is transpired that average consumption of complainant is 500 to 1000 units per billing cycle and the consumption recorded vide disputed bill is highly excessive than the average consumption of the complainant. It is not the case of the OPs that during this period there was any construction work or any other function in the house of complainant in which he used this much electricity. So we are of considered opinion that OPs did not issue the bill in question as per actual consumption of the complainant.  So, it is clear that the bills are not issued as per correctly recorded consumption. As per the rules and regulations if there is any defect in the electric meter and not recording consumption than the consumption shall be charged on the basis of average of last year.  The relevant regulations of PSPCL given in section 21.04 (g) (ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 vide notification no.PSERC/Secy/Regu.31 dated June, 29, 2007 are reproduced as hereunder:

cc no.-177 of 2018

“The account of a consumer will be overhauled for the period a defective meter remained at site and for the period of direct supply, on  the basis of energy consumption of the corresponding period of the previous year after calibrating for the changes in load, if any. In case the average consumption for the corresponding period of previous year is not available then, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicted in para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous/succeeding year.

12                                   In the instant case, the average consumption for the corresponding period of the previous year must be available with the Ops, so in view of aforementioned section 21.4 (g) ( ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicated in Para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of previous year.

13                                  In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and the demand raised by Ops from complainant vide bill  dated 30.09.2018 is set aside and quashed. However, the Ops are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period by overhauling his account on the basis of

cc no.-177 of 2018

average consumption in the corresponding period of the  previous year. Ops are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 6.11.2018 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 entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 10.06.2019

 

                              (Param Pal Kaur)                      (Ajit Aggarwal)

   Member                                  President