Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/72

Rameshwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

14 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No :       72

Date of Institution : 27.05.2015

Date of Decision :   14.07.2015

 

Rameshwar aged about 60 years s/o Kalu Ram r/o Street No. 2, Jiwan Nagar, District Faridkot.                                            ..Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Faridkot.... OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

 (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 check the fast running meter of complainant and to correct the bill and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant and Rs 5,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having a domestic electric connection bearing no. BR-37/0276 with sanctioned load of 0.46 KW. Complainant received bill dt 7.04.2010 for 320 units, which is very excessive. Meter of the complainant is running fast and giving excess consumption. Vide representation dated 19.04.2010, complainant requested OP-2 to check his fast running meter and correct the bill. Op-2 directed A.J.E. Somnath to check the meter and report, but he did not check the meter and subsequent bills for June/2010 and August/2010 were issued to complainant on the basis of reading shown by fast running meter. In October/2010 complainant again received excessive bill. On this, complainant again made representation before OP-2 to check his meter and correct the bill and on checking the meter, AJE found the meter fast running and accordingly directed complainant to deposit Meter Challenge Fee.  Thereafter, complainant deposited Rs 250/- as Meter Challenge Fee vide receipt no. 22/7441 dt 28.12.2010 and then meter of the complainant was removed by OPs for getting the same checked in M.E.Lab and new meter was installed. Since then, meter of the complainant is in the custody of OPs and despite repeated requests made by complainant, neither the meter of the complainant is checked nor his bills are corrected and this act and conduct of Ops has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant and all this amounts to deficiency in service and complainant has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to pay Rs 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 5,000/-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 03.02.2012, 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 taking preliminary objections that OPs have constituted various dispute settlement committees to settle disputes between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before the settlement committees and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and being not maintainable, present complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that complainant is not the consumer of OPs as complainant was indulged in the theft of electricity. It is brought before the Forum that meter of the complainant was not running fast and correct bills were issued to complainant as per consumption of the power and there is no link between load sanctioned and consumption. Complainant challenged the meter on 28.12.2010 and by that time, meter had already been removed and got checked and it was deposited in the ME Lab vide challan no. 95 dt 1.12.2010. Meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO no. 197/10037 dt 15.11.2010, whereas complainant challenged the meter and deposited Rs 250/-on 28.12.2010. By that time, his meter had already been removed and got checked in ME Lab and removed meter no. 524457 was deposited in M E Lab. Removed meter was tested in the ME Lab  and it was reported that the meter is burnt. It is also denied that meter is in the custody of OPs. 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.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-10 and closed the same.

6                                        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh SDO Ex R-1 and documents Ex R-2 to 4 and closed the evidence.

7                                         Ld Counsel for complainant argued that the complainant is the consumer of OPs having domestic electric connection with sanctioned load of 0.46 KW. The complainant received electricity bill of excessive amount than his actual consumption. Electric meter of the complainant was running fast and showing excessive consumption. The complainant informed OP-2 vide letter dt 19.04.2010, which is Ex C-5 and requested to get the meter checked and correct the bill but the meter of the complainant was not checked and his bills were also not corrected. Subsequent bills were issued regarding excess amount on the basis of fast running meter. The complainant again gave representation to OP-2 vide letter dt 11.10.2010, copy of which is Ex C-6 and requested to get the meter checked and correct the bill. The AJE of OP-2 checked the meter and found that the meter was running fact and directed complainant to deposit Meter Challenge fee. On 28.12.2010, complainant deposited Rs 250/- as Meter Challenge fee, copy of which is Ex C-4. After that meter of the complainant was removed by OPs and sent for checking to M E Lab and a new meter was installed. The old meter of the complainant is in the custody of OPs and they neither checked it nor corrected the bill of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Due to this act of OPs, complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension. He has prayed for accepting the complaint and for compensation and litigation expenses.

8                                 Ld Counsel for OPs contended that complainant is not the consumer of OPs. Complainant has given wrong facts and complainant was indulged in the theft of energy. The OPs sent correct bills to the complainant as per power consumption. The meter of the complainant was not running fast and was giving correct reading. Complainant challenged the meter  on 28.12.2010, whereas meter of the complainant was changed on 15.11.2010 vide MCO Ex R-4 and it was deposited with ME Lab for checking. In ME Lab, meter of the complainant was duly checked and it was found to be burnt. Complainant has levelled false allegations against OPs. OPs have sent correct bills to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or trade mal practice on the part of OPs and have prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on file. The complainant has produced copies of electricity bills dt 13.02.2011 revealing electricity consumption of 140 units as in Ex C-7, bill dated 15.04.2011, in which consumption is 202 units as Ex C-8 and bill dt 10.08.2010 in which consumption of the electricity is shown as 1666 units and the same is Ex C-9.  OPs produced copy of account statement as Ex R-2 for the period from August/2010 to June/2012 in which consumption of complainant is shown in August/ 2010 as 1666 units, whereas in the other months, the consumption of the complainant is shown as much lesser or to say his average consumption of electricity is about 250 units per bill.

10                                         In the light of above discussion, this Forum is of the considered opinion that the bill sent to the complainant in August/2010 is for very excessive consumption, whereas average consumption of the complainant is lesser than this.

11                                      In these circumstances, present complaint is hereby allowed with direction to OPs to correct the bill of complainant for August/2010 and issue the bill on average basis. Ops are further directed to pay Rs 6,000/-to complainant for compensation on account of harassment and mental tension suffered by him besides Rs 3,000/-as litigation expenses. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 14.07.2015

                   Member                   Member               President                     (Parampal Kaur)                 (P Singla)           (Ajit Aggarwal)