Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/152

Parvinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar Mittal

17 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :          152 of 2019

Date of Institution :     19.06.2019

Date of Decision :        17.03.2020

 

Parvinder Singh @ Goldy aged about 50 years s/o Rachpal Singh, Canal Rest House, Guru Nanak Colony, Sanglan Wali Gali, Bathinda Road, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, PSPCL, Sub Division, Jaitu.      

        .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

              Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

   Sh Mohan Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.    

cc no.-152 of 2019

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.38,040/- raised vide bill dated 17.12.2018 and for further directing them to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. 3000248907 in his name and he has been paying all the bills as and when received and nothing is due towards him on account of consumption charges. It is submitted that complainant received a bill dated 17.12.2018 for Rs.38,040/- for the period from 21.09.2018 to 17.12.2018 for 4504 units, which is very excessive as compared to normal consumption. Complainant raised objection on this bill and on his request, OP-2 changed the meter of complainant and sent the same

cc no.-152 of 2019

to M E Lab, where it was found to be correct and there is no fault or illegal means or unauthorised use by him, but despite this, OPs kept raising the said demand. Complainant made several requests to them to withdraw the demand, but all in vain and this act and conduct of Ops in not withdrawing the said bill has caused huge inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to him for which he has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to set aside the demand of Rs.38,040/-raised vide bill dt 17.12.2018 and for further directing them to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 19.06.2019, 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 admitted that complainant has been

cc no.-152 of 2019

making payment of all bills as per assessment and demand made by them. It is also admitted that bill dated 17.12.2018 for 4504 units was issued by them. It is also admitted that meter of complainant was changed. Old meter was removed and new meter with initial reading of 2 units was installed on 21.09.2018 and new reading on 17.12.2018 was 4506 units. Bill was for Rs.49,503/-, adjustment of Rs.10,893/-was made and bill for Rs.39,520/- was issued on the basis of actual consumption. On 5.02.2019, meter of complainant was removed and sent to M E Lab, where it was  found to be working correctly and thus, bill was issued on actual consumption basis. OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that correct bill was issued to complainant and there is no need to correct the same. Complainant has levelled false allegations against them and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

 

cc no.-152 of 2019

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 16 and closed the same.

6                                      In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajinder Singh as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-5 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 and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that OPs issued him bill dt 17.12.2018 for Rs.38,040/- for the period from 21.09.2018 to 17.12.2018 for 4504 units, which is very excessive as compare to normal consumption. From the bills placed on record, it is clear that actual consumption of complainant is between 400 to 500

cc no.-152 of 2019

units and reading of 4504 units depicted by OPs in bill in question dated 17.12.2018 is highly excessive and does not seem appropriate and thus, amount of Rs.38,040/-demanded on the basis of consumption of 4504 units is not justifiable. OPs have themselves admitted in written reply that new meter was installed on 21.09.2018 with initial reading of 02 units and consumption of 4504 units during the period from 21.09.2018 to 17.12.2018 does not seem to be as per real and actual consumption. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests by him, OPs did not correct his bill. This amount is highly excessive, but OPs have failed to pay heed to his genuine requests and did not correct the bill and have failed to redress his grievance. He has prayed for directions to OPs to withdraw the demand raised vide bill dated 17.12.2018.

9                             From the bills placed on record, it is clear that meter in question is installed in the name of complainant and bills are being issued by them in his name in respect of meter installed at his premises. Thus, there is no doubt that complainant is the consumer of OPs.

cc no.-152 of 2019

Ld counsel for complainant pleaded before the Forum that amount in question is raised vide bill dated17.12.2018 for consumption of 4504 units and this consumption reading and amount raised is very excessive. Amount of Rs.38,040/- raised by Ops vide bill dated 17.12.2018 on account of reading of 4504 units is inappropriate and does not seem to be correct. Average consumption of the complainant appears to be within 400-500 units, but consumption of 4504 units exceeds the maximum limit. It seems that meter in question was not recording correct 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:

“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

cc no.-152 of 2019

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.

10                                    In the instant case, the average consumption for the corresponding period of the previous years 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.

11                               In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and the demand

cc no.-152 of 2019

raised by Ops from complainant vide bill dated 17.12.2018 is set aside and quashed. However, the Ops are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period from 21.09.2018 to 17.12.2018 by overhauling his account on the basis of average consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year. 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 : 17.03.2020

 

                                        (Param Pal Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

            Member