Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/30

Nirmala Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ajit Pal Singh

09 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    C. C. No :                   30 of 2018

Date of Institution :      8.03.2018

Date of Decision :        9.04.2019

Nirmala Devi aged about 60 years w/o  Parkash Singh r/o Sadiq Road, Near Sheller, Hargobind Nagar Basti, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its M D, Patiala.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., City Sub Division, Faridkot through its Assistant Executive Engineer.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

              Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ajit Pal 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

cc no.-30 of 2018

withdraw the bill cum notice dated 31.01.2018 for Rs.95,540/- and for further directing them to pay Rs.25,000/- 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 domestic electric connection bearing new a/c no. 3000391395 installed in his premises and she has been making payment against all bills as and when received and nothing is due on account of consumption charges towards the complainant. it is submitted that complainant received bill dated 3.06.2017 for Rs.73,343/- and on making enquiry he found that bill issued to her bore the meter no.872752 which does not belong to complainant. it is further submitted that meter is installed by OPs in her house and it has never been changed, but in bill number of meter is changed. Complainant belongs to S.C. Category and as per government policy she is entitled for exemption of 200 units. Complainant requested Ops vide her application to withdraw the said bill, but Ops did not take any action on her application. Thereafter, she received bill cum notice dated 31.01.2018 for Rs.95,540/-, which is very excessive and unlawful and is against the rules of PSPCL. Complainant approached OPs and requested them to withdraw the said bill but OPs later on corrected the bill for Rs.61,980/-, but did not correct the bill for remaining amount which is very excessive and unlawful. Complainant made several requests to Ops to correct the bill, but they flatly refused to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on

cc no.-30 of 2018

their part and has caused harassment and mental agony to her. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                        Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 13.03.2018, 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 asserted that meter no.199438 has been installed in the premises of complainant for many years and admitted that wrong meter number was written in the bill. It is brought before the Forum that bills have been corrected by them. Bills for the period from 4/ 2015 to 12/ 2016 were sent to complainant on average basis due to F code ie difference in meter, but her meter was never changed and it is still at its site. Complainant deposited the bill dated 4.02.2015 with last reading of 3139 units, but inadvertently bill dated 5.02.2017 was issued with reading of 2 units though it should have been for 3139 units and taking the consumption, the bill should have been for 6855 units (9996-3139 = 6855 units). At the time of correction of bill dated 5.02.2017, consumption of 3329 units was also removed and this correction was done by Sundry item no.398/59/6 and after correction of bill, sum of Rs.27,840/-was found due and recoverable on account of consumption charges. Entire amount has already been corrected and now, sum of

cc no.-30 of 2018

Rs.9560/-is due towards complainant on account of consumption up to 1.06.2018. Bills have already been corrected by answering Ops and OPs are entitled to recover the amount due towards the complainant. All the other allegations are refuted being wrong ad incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 13 and closed the same.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld counsel for opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2  and Ex OP-14  and then, closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

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

8                                        From the careful perusal of record file and evidence and documents placed on record by complainant and OPs, it is observed that case of the complainant is that she received excessive bill on  31.01.2018  for Rs.95,540/-. She approached Ops and requested them to correct the bill, but Ops corrected the bill for Rs.61,980/-and

cc no.-30 of 2018

flatly refused to withdraw the bill for remaining amount, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the contrary, Ops stressed mainly on the point that they have already made the requisite corrections and have already corrected the bill and asserted that bills for the period from 4/ 2015 to 12/ 2016 were sent to complainant on average basis due to F code i.e difference in meter, but her meter was never changed and it is still at its site. Complainant paid the bill dated 4.02.2015 with last reading of 3139 units, but inadvertently bill dated 5.02.2017 was issued with reading of 2 units though it should have been for 3139 units and taking the consumption, the bill should have been for 6855 units (9996-3139 = 6855 units). At the time of correction of bill dated 5.02.2017, consumption of 3329 units was also removed and this correction was done by Sundry item no.398/59/6 and after correction of bill, sum of Rs.27,840/-was found due and recoverable on account of consumption charges. Entire amount has already been corrected and now, sum of  Rs.9560/-is due towards her up to 1.06.2018. They have already rectified the bill and necessary adjustments have been made. Complainant is liable to pay the amount due towards her and they have every right to recover the same. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

9                                            OPs have placed on record Ex OP-2 copy of account statement of meter of complainant that proves the fact that charges for the units 6855 were due and recoverable from complainant. It reveals that complainant paid bill dated 4.02.2015 with last reading of 3139 units, but inadvertently bill dated 5.02.2017 was issued with

cc no.-30 of 2018

reading of 2 units though it should have been for 3139 units and taking the consumption, the bill should have been for 6855 units (9996-3139 = 6855 units). Further copies of bills Ex OP-3 to Ex Op-14 clearly prove the version of Ops that necessary and requisite corrections have already been made by them. While correcting the bill dated 5.02.2017, consumption of 3329 units was also removed and this correction was done by Sundry item no.398/59/6 and after correction of bill, sum of Rs.9560/-was found due and recoverable on account of consumption charges. Entire amount has already been corrected and amount which is due towards her, she is liable to pay the same.

10                                             From the above discussion and keeping in view documents and evidence placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that bill dated 31.01.2018 for Rs.95,540/-has already been corrected by Ops. Ops have already redressed the grievance of complainant by making necessary corrections while rectifying the bill. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complainant is liable to pay the amount due towards her. Therefore, complaint filed by complainant is hereby dismissed being infructuous. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated : 9.04.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                           President