DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  682

                                                Instituted on:    02.12.2016

                                                Decided on:       03.05.2017

Nawal Kishore son of Badri Prashad R/O Ram Nagar Basti, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its CMD/Chairman/Secretary.

2.     S.D.O./Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Sub Division, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :               Shri Amit Aggarwal, Adv.

For Ops                    :               Shri Mohit Verma, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Nawal Kishore, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is the consumer of the Ops vide electricity connection number S52RB170229X at Sunam and the complainant has been paying the bills regularly and the meter was installed outside the house of the complainant. 

2.             The complainant is aggrieved on receiving a wrong bill dated 26.10.2016 for Rs.82,210/- for 13797 units, which is said to be wrong as the complainant was never issued any type of prior notice to the complainant before raising such a huge demand. Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the Ops so many times to get the bill rectified, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw/quash the bills dated 26.10.2016 for Rs.82,210/- and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and that the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs under the connection in question. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  It is stated further that the bill dated 26.10.2016 was issued to the complainant for Rs.82,210/-. It is further stated that the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO dated 4.8.2016 on account of M&T seals broken and the meter was changed on the site, but the same was not effected in SAP system, so the bills were issued to the complainant during the period of March 2015 to September 2016 under F code i.e. on average basis and the same were not issued as per the actual consumption basis.  However, it has been admitted that the bill dated 26.10.2016 was issued to the complainant for Rs.82,100/-. It is stated further that the actual consumption of the complainant during the said period i.e. March, 2015 to September 2016 was for 13793 units, but the complainant deposited the amount on average basis under F code. As such, it is stated that the complainant is liable to deposit the consumption charges duly consumed by him. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and it is stated that the complainant wants to take benefit of the mistake of the Ops. Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 copies of bills and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of MCO, Ex.OP-3 copy of checking report dated 6.3.2017, Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5 copies of consumption detail and closed evidence.

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops vide domestic connection in question.  In the present case, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OPs have issued a wrong bill dated 26.20.2016 for Rs.82,210/- for 13797 units, which was never consumed by the complainant.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that in fact the meter of the complainant was changed at site on 4.8.2016, but the  same was not effected in SAP system, so the bills for the period from May, 2015 to April 2016 were issued under F code i.e. on average basis, which was very low, whereas the actual consumption of the complainant was also available as such taking the difference of both the consumption of electricity, the complainant was charged accordingly and bill for Rs.82,210/- was issued.  To support this contention, the learned counsel for the OPs has cited consumption data for the years 2015 and 2016, Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5, which show that the complainant was charged on average basis, whereas his actual consumption was available and the same could not be entered in the SAP system for the period from May, 2015 to April 2016. On the other hand, to rebut this contention the complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.  Now, the fact remains that the Ops have legally charged the actual consumption of electricity from the complainant. But, the fact further remains that the Ops were duty bound to issue the correct bills to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption, whereas the Ops issued the bills for the period from May, 2015 to April, 2016 under code ‘F’ i.e. on average basis and demanded the huge difference amount from the complainant vide bill dated 26.10.2016.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not raise such a demand from the complainant continuously  and why they did not update their SAP system immediately in May, 2015. Under the circumstances, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service by raising the huge demand at one go and even without explaining the reasons to the complainant, for which the complainant must have suffered mental tension, agony and harassment and even compelled to approach this Forum to get relief.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further to pay Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a  period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 3, 2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                         Member