DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.446 of 24-09-2010 Decided on 23-12-2010
Ramesh Kumar, aged 51 years, son of Sh. Bela Ram resident of House No.2988, Vishal Nagar, Street No.1, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Executive Engineer, City Division, Bathinda. S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., City Sub Division, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Varun Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Parveen Sharma, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant is holding domestic electric connection bearing A/c No. B-13K380750A with connected load of 7.93KW. The complainant received a bill dated 17.09.2010 from the opposite party wherein the consumption of electricity has been shown as 3213 units and the consumption charges as Rs.14,913 + E.D of Rs.1,939/-, meter rent to the tune of Rs.10/- and service charges to the tune of Rs.10/-.The opposite parties have claimed Rs.14,668/- under the head of Sundry charges requiring him to pay the aforesaid amount upto 01.10.2010. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties had not afforded any opportunity of being heard to him. They have not issued any notice rather they have raised the said demand through bill without any explanation. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. The opposite parties have pleaded in their written statement that the account of the complainant was overhauled by the Audit party and it was found that the complainant was issued bill dated 18.07.2009 for the period of 29.07.2009 to 04.08.2009 for a sum of Rs.4,200/- only for 1030 units which was incorrect because the meter installed in the premises of the complainant, at that time, was faulty and was showing the old consumption as 29380 while new consumption as 2627 and difference of units as 1030 only. The old consumption of the complainant after change of the meter was 2 and new consumption was 2627 and as such, there was difference of 2625 units which were consumed by the complainant during the above said period but the said bill was prepared for 1030 units instead of 2625 units and the Audit party calculated the difference of the amount less charged by the opposite parties in the bill dated 18.07.2009 which came out to Rs.7,408/- + 741/-. The bill dated 09.09.2009 issued to the complainant was wrongly issued on average basis for 1801 units only. The new reading of the meter was 5789 units while the old reading was 2627 units and the difference of units consumed by the complainant came out to 3162 units but the said bill was issued to the complainant only for 1801 units and as such, the Audit party calculated the difference of the amount less charged by the opposite parties in the aforesaid bill dated 09.09.2009 which came out to Rs.5,927/- + 592/- and in this way, the Audit party found an outstanding balance of Rs.13,335/- + 1,333/- i.e. total sum of Rs.14,668/- against the complainant and the said amount has been rightly added in the bill issued to the complainant by the opposite parties on 17.09.2010. As such, the amount in question was less charged by the opposite parties from the complainant due to some inadvertence and accidental omission. The opposite parties further pleaded that there is no necessity for issuance of any separate notice to the complainant.
Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submission submitted by the parties perused. The complainant has got bill dated 17-09-2010 for Rs. 14,913/- out of which Rs. 14,668/- are shown under sundry charges. The complainant requested the opposite parties to correct the said bill, but the opposite parties directed the complainant to pay the said amount otherwise his connection would be disconnected. The opposite parties submitted that the demand raised under the sundry charges in bill dated 17-09-2010 are due to the objection of the audit. As the opposite parties were overhauling the account of the complainant, it had been found that the meter of the complainant was defective. The complainant was issued bill dated 18-07-2009 for a period 29-07-2009 to 4-8-2009 for a sum of Rs. 4200/- for 1030 units which was incorrect and the meter installed in the premises of the complainant, at that time, was faulty and was showing the old consumption of 29380 units whereas new consumption was 2627 and difference was calculated to the tune of Rs. 1030 units. The old consumption of the complainant after change of meter was 2 and new consumption was 2627 as such, there was difference of 2625 units which were consumed by the complainant during the above mentioned period. The audit party calculated the difference of the amount less charged by the opposite parties in the aforesaid bill dated 18-07-2009 which was calculated to the tune of Rs. 7,408/- + Rs. 741/-. Similarly, the bill dated 9-9-2009 was wrongly issued to the complainant on average basis for 1801 units. The new reading of the meter was 5789 units while the old reading was 2627 units and the difference of units consumed was issued to the complainant only for 1801 units. Thus, the audit party calculated the difference of units to the tune of 3162 units and the aforesaid bill dated 9-9-2009 came to the tune of Rs. 5927/- + Rs. 592/-. In this way, the outstanding amount was calculated to the tune of Rs. 13,335/- + Rs. 1333/-. Total sum of Rs. 14,668/- was calculated against the complainant and the bill of dated 17-09-2010 was issued to the complainant. Hence, the total demand raised from the complainant was Rs. 14,668/-. The meter installed by the opposite party was defective as it was showing more reading than the new one which clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. They according to their convenience sent bill on average basis, then the audit party raised objection and opposite parties sent bill showing sundry charges to the tune of Rs. 14,668/-. A perusal of Ex. C-5 shows that meter is showing status 'F; old reading as 29380, new as 2627 and the meter number was 863194 whereas a perusal of Ex. C-6 shows status of meter as 'C; meter number as 1088104. This bill has also been issued on average basis. No old reading has been recorded in this bill but new reading is shown as 5789 and consumed units are 1801. Further a perusal of bill dated 16-01-2010 Ex. C-7 show that number of meter is 837666, meter status 'C'. This shows that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as earlier they have installed the defective meter in the premises of the complainant. Hence, this complaint is partly accepted with cost of Rs. 500/- and the impugned demand raised through bill dated 17-09-2010 showing sundry charges of Rs. 14,668/- are hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to do as under :-
a) Overhaul the account of the complainant and issue him fresh bills for the period for which he had been charged on average basis, considering the consumption of the complainant of the previous year of those particulars months/period and to adjust the amount he has already deposited.
b) To furnish the detailed statement to the complainant by showing each and every bill of the complainant i.e. charged on average basis and the bill of the previous year of that particular month. c) Refund Rs. 5,000/- alongwith interest @9% P.A. from the date of deposit till realisation, deposited by the complainant vide Ex. C-11as per direction of this Forum vide order dated 30-09-2010, for not disconnecting his electric connection. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned.
Pronounced 23-12-2010 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President (Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
|
