Punjab

StateCommission

A/1484/2014

Ram Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Goel

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1484 of 2014

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 10.11.2014        

                                                          Date of Decision :  17.08.2015

 

Ram Chand S/o Shri Uttam Chand, R/o H.No.1298, Arya Mohalla, Ludhiana.          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   …..Appellant/Complainant

                                               

                                      Versus

 

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, City Centre, U-III, Ludhiana, through its XEN.

 

                                                                                                              … Respondent/Opposite Party

 

 

First Appeal against order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Ludhiana

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                      : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate  

          For the respondent                  : Ex-parte

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint), challenging order dated 12.09.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant now appellant against the same.

2.      The complainant Ram Chand has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP, on the averments that he has been electricity connection holder bearing no.E23EA010680P under Domestic Tariff in the outside of the premises. He alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP on the ground that the OP, vide bill dated 25.04.2014 claimed sundry charges of Rs.31,685/- without showing any explanation and justification therefor. The said demand so claimed is in violation of norms, regulations and Electricity Act, 2003. However, on visiting the OP, it was disclosed that against bill dated 28.08.2013 and July, 2013, the average against non-working meter for the above-said period has been charged, whereas, as per the complainant, the OPs are not entitled to claim average charges against disputed bills, as well as, sum of Rs.31,685/- because both the bills dated 28.8.2013 and July, 2013 have been charged as MMC (Monthly Minimum Charges). So there was no question to claim average charges against the above said bills, once the bill has been charged on MMC. Therefore, charging of average is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to violation of rules. It was further alleged that the bills were issued on average for the period of October, 2013, December, 2013, February, 2014 in spite of recording reading by the Meter Reader in time. These bills were charged excessively against average, but paid by the complainant under false assurance of the OP that the future bill would be issued on reading basis and the average charges would be adjusted, but till date, the OP had not adjusted the average bills against the actual consumption reading, so there was difference of 486 units being excess charged by the OP. Therefore, it amounts to rendering of deficient services and unfair trade practice. The complainant alleged that bill dated 25.4.2014 was issued on actual consumption reading of 647 units against old reading of 3082 units and new reading of 3720 units. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint directing the OP to quash the demand of sundry charges of Rs.31,685/- raised in bill dated 25.4.2014 along with surcharge. The complainant further averred that he is ready to pay the bills dated 28.8.2013 and July, 2013, as per norms and rules of the OP. He also prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.55,000 as cost of litigation. 

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in preliminary objections that electric connection bearing A/c No.EA-01/0680  was of domestic category, having sanctioned load of 9.980 KW, which was granted to complainant. As per site report dated 25.7.2013 prepared by AJE of Unit No.3, meter was not recording reading and same was lying dead stop in site report. Last reading was recorded as 080284, it was mentioned in the site report that MCO against said connection be issued and meter should be changed and old meter be got checked in ME Lab, which earlier became defective and later on went dead stop, as per record of the OP. MCO was issued by OP to change the dead meter during the month of June, 2013 and August 2013. The meter showed reading as 080284 recorded on 2.05.2013, 27.06.2013 and 28.08.2013 due to dead stop. During that period, bills against said connection were issued on MCC basis and MCO was effected by OP on 10.09.2013 and new meter was installed in place of dead meter. The account of the said connection was revised for the period April, 2013 to August, 2013 on the basis of average consumption taken by OP for the period April, 2012 to August, 2012 during which period total consumption of 5566 units was duly recorded by old meter. The monthly consumption of 1855 units on average basis was worked out to be charged against said connection and amount already recovered during the period April, 2013 to August, 2013 through MMC bills was adjusted and after adjustment sum of Rs.31540/- was found  recoverable against said connection, as average consumption charges found recoverable due to dead meter and this amount was charged through sundry register entry and was included in the current bill dated 25.4.2014 and the demand was, thus, alleged to be legal. The complaint was contested by the OPs on the above-refereed grounds and even on merits and, thus, OP prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.CA-1 along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8. As against it OP tendered in evidence, the affidavit of R.S Tung Additional S.E City Central Division Special PSPC Ludhiana Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6. On conclusion of exparte evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 12.09.2014. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as respondent in this appeal is exparte and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      The argument raised before us by counsel for the appellant is that OP unauthroizedly claimed sundry charges of Rs.31,685/- from the complainant, vide bill dated 25.4.2014 without showing any explanation. It was further argued that against bill dated 28.08.2013 and July 2013, average against non-working of the meter for the above-said period has been charged, whereas, OP had already charged as monthly minimum charges, hence, there is no question to claim average charges against the above said bills. The OP issued bills on the average for the period October, 2013, December, 2013, February, 2014 despite recording meter reading in time. It was further averred that these bills were charged excessively against average. The counsel for the appellant argued that OP had not adjusted average bills against actual consumption reading, so there is difference of 486 units being excess charged by OP. It was admitted that the actual consumption reading was of 647 units against old reading of 3082 units and new reading of 3720 units on the above-referred grounds. The submission of appellant is that OP illegally charged the amount against bill dated 28.08.2013 and July 2013 against average basis, whereas OP is not entitled to claim the charges against disputed bill, as well as, sum of Rs.31,685/- because both bills dated 28.08.2013 and July 2013 have been charged as monthly minimum charges. We have examined the pleadings of the appellant/complainant on the record and affidavit of the complainant in this case. Bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 have been considered by us. There is affidavit of R.S Tung Additional SE City Central Division Special, PSPC Ltd Ludhiana Ex.RW-1/A in support of case of the OP. Vide report Ex.R-1, meter was found to be dead stop, which was outside the premises of the complainant. Meter Change Order was issued accordingly, vide Ex.R-3 and challan is Ex.R-4 on the record. Consumption of electricity by the complainant, vide Ex.R-5 and Ex.R-6 on the file.

7.      From analysis of the above-referred evidence and hearing the submissions of the complainant, we find that meter was not recording the reading correctly and was rather reported ‘dead stop’ in the checking report. Last reading was 080284, which was recorded in MCO against said connection during the month of June 2013 to August 2013. The meter was showing consumption reading as 080284 due to ‘dead stop’. Hence, bill against said connection was issued on minimum charges basis. New meter was installed in place of dead meter on 10.09.2013. The account of the complainant was overhauled accordingly for the period April 2013 to August 2013. We find that OP has charged monthly minimum charges from the complainant for the month of June 2013 to August 2013 and they have again charged it on the average basis. We, thus, hold that the charges on minimum basis have already been received from the complainant by the OP for the month of July 2013 to August 2013. The OP is not justified in charging the minimum basis, as well as, on average basis simultaneously. The minimum charges already recovered by the OP for the month of June 2013 to August 2013 are ordered to be adjusted against demand raised by the OP from the complainant out of Rs.31,685/- .

8.      As a result of our discussion, we party accept the appeal exparte and order that both average and minimum charges have already recovered by the OP for the month of June 2013 to August 2013 from complainant simultaneously, which is not permissible. It is, thus, directed that they are ordered to be adjusted against the demand raised by the OP from the complainant out of Rs.31,685/- in the bill sent to the complainant dated 25.4.2014, as only average charges could be recovered and minimum charges recovered in addition thereto have to be adjusted. Appeal of the appellant is, thus, party accepted to this extent.

9.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

10.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

August  17,  2015.                                                         

(ravi)