DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 170/2015
Date of Institution : 08.07.2015
Date of Decision : 09.03.2016
Sarwan Singh aged about 73 years, son of Jangir Singh, resident of House No. B-V/361, Old Radhaswami Street, Near Factory of M/s Lekh Raj Moti Ram, Jandawala Road, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office The Mall Patiala, through its Chairman.
Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Distribution Division, City, Barnala.
Assistant Executive Engineer (S.D.O), Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., City Division, Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. J. R. Garg counsel for the complainant.
Sh. S.K. Kotia counsel for the opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
Sh. Karnail Singh : Member.
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member.
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Sarwan Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter called as the opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties under Account No. LP1GR671227H in his house No. B-V/361 situated at Jandawala Road, Barnala. The complainant has been regularly paying the bills issued by the opposite parties in respect of the said electric connection from time to time. However, the meter of the said electric connection of the complainant had gone out of order and as such the opposite parties changed the said meter with meter No. 4684444 and sent bill No. 39145 dated 27.8.2013 on average basis and in the said bill, status of the meter has clearly been shown as 'C', meaning thereby the meter has been changed. The complainant paid the amount of the said bill to the opposite parties vide receipt No. 79 dated 12.9.2013. Thereafter, the complainant received bill No. 54097 dated 26.10.2013 on the basis of monthly minimum charges amounting to Rs. 490/- as only 79 units of electricity was consumed by the complainant. The complainant also paid the amount of the said bill to the opposite parties vide receipt No. 119 dated 12.11.2013. The complainant further received bill No. 69091 dated 24.12.2013 on the basis of monthly minimum charges amounting to Rs. 460/- as only 40 units of electricity was consumed by the complainant. The complainant also paid the amount of the said bill to the opposite parties. It is further averred that the complainant had been receiving bills in respect of the said electric connection from the opposite parties and the complainant has been making part payments thereof from time to time. The complainant further received bill No. 420 dated 9.2.2015 in respect of the said electric connection for an amount of Rs. 36,290/-, which included the arrears of previous bills and the complainant made the payment of the said bill vide receipt No. 287 dated 23.2.2015.
3. It is alleged that thereafter, the complainant received bill dated 18.4.2015 bearing No. 1005915D181248407 for a sum of Rs. 18,550/- only consisting of an amount of Rs. 6,927/- on account of SOP, Rs. 10,444/- on account of Net ED and Rs. 1,152/- on account of Net Octroi and Rs. 27/- on account of rents. As such, an amount of Rs. 11,220/- (i.e. Rs. 558/- on account of SOP, Rs. 9,616/- i.e. Rs. 8,441/- on account of arrears of ED for pervious year, an amount of Rs. 1,175/- on account of Sundry Charges on ED and an amount of Rs. 1,046/- on account of arrears of Octroi for previous year has been demanded in excess from the complainant by the opposite parties.
4. It is further alleged that the complainant visited the office of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 on 27.4.2015 and requested them to correct the said bill and to charge the amount of the bill after deducting the aforesaid amounts mentioned in sub para (f), but the opposite parties flatly refused to hear the request of the complainant and even threatened him that in case he failed to pay the said amount then the electricity connection of the complainant will be disconnected. It is further alleged that the above said demand of Rs. 11,220/- raised by the opposite parties in bill No. 1005915D181248407 dated 18.4.2015 is against law and facts. The said act and conduct of the opposite parties caused a great hardship and mental agony to the complainant and thus the act of the opposite parties falls under the definition of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
To correct Bill No. 1005915D181248407 dated 18.4.2015 and to accept the payment of Rs. 7,330/- only in respect of the said bill after deducting the amount of Rs. 11,220/- wrongly and illegally demanded by the opposite parties.
To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written version taking legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant has no locus-standi and complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, the opposite parties have denied the payment of entire outstanding amount vide Bill No. 420 dated 9.2.2015. It is further averred that the amount which has been demanded from the complainant vide Bill dated 18.4.2015 has not been included in the Bill No. 420 dated 9.2.2015 and the same has not been recovered from the complainant previously. It is further submitted that the audit party has inspected the account of the complainant and it has been found by the audit party vide its report dated 20.3.2015 that in the month of August, 2013 due to C-Code factor, the complainant was sent the bill of 586 units on Average Basis. In the year August 2014, the complainant has consumed 1992 units. As such, according to “Succeeding Year Same Month Supply Code Regulation 21.4 g (ii), the chargeable units for the August 2013 is 1992 units. As such, after deducting 586 units from 1992 units, the chargeable units are 1406 units and the chargeable amount has been calculated for 1406 units as mentioned in audit report is Rs. 10,223/-, which has been included in the bill dated 18.4.2015 of the succeeding year as sundry charges. Before including the amount of Rs. 10,223/- a letter No. 376 of 30.3.2015 was also served upon the complainant. They have denied that they have been demanding the excess amount from the complainant. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, bill No. 39145 dated 27.8.2013 Ex.C-2, receipt No. 79 Ex.C-3, bill dated 9.2.2015 Ex.C-4, receipt No. 287 Ex.C-5, bill dated 18.4.2015 Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
7. In order to rebut the case of complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Dharmpal SDO Ex.O.P-1 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the Ld. for the parties and have gone through the evidence tendered by both the parties.
9. The main controversy is whether the opposite parties are entitled to recover Rs. 10,223/- as arrears of the previous year mentioned in electricity bill Ex.C-6.
10. It is the case of the opposite parties that the audit party has inspected the account of the complainant and it was found by the audit party that in the month of August 2013 due to C-Code factor the complainant was sent the bill of 586 units on Average Basis. It is further submitted that in the August 2014 the complainant consumed 1992 units and as such according to Succeeding Year Same Month Supply Code Regulation 21.4g, the chargeable units for the August 2013 is 1992 units. It is further submitted that as such after deducting 586 units from 1992 units, the chargeable units are 1406 units as mentioned in audit report and charges to the tune of Rs 10,223/- are mentioned in the bill in dispute Ex.C-6 of the succeeding year as sundry charges. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned bill Ex.C-6 is issued correctly and the opposite parties are competent to recover the said amount.
11. On the other hand, the complainant has submitted firstly that no amount of the previous year is due against the complainant and vide receipt No. 287 dated 23.2.2015 the complainant made the entire outstanding amount. However, the complainant has not placed on record any such receipt to show that nothing was due against the complainant and the entire amount has been paid.
12. Facing the situation, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant further submitted that when for August 2013 a bill of 586 units on Average Basis was sent then the opposite parties should have sent the revised bill and it should be done according to the previous year/month bill and as such the bill August 2012 was to be considered rather August 2014. It is further submitted that even no audit report has been placed on record, which has been relied upon by the opposite parties. Even no prior notice was given to the complainant explaining the justification of the impugned bill.
13. Admittedly, there is dispute of the sundry charges of Rs. 10,223/-, which were included in the bill dated 18.4.2015 Ex.C-6. There is also no dispute that the opposite parties sent a bill of 586 units on Average Basis in the month of August 2013. It is also not disputed that in the year August 2014 the complainant consumed 1992 units i.e. 1406 units more than in the previous year of the same month.
14. It is also the case of the opposite parties that due to audit report the account for August 2013 charging 586 units on Average Basis was revised on the basis of Succeeding Year Same Month Supply Code and the charges of the difference of 1406 units in the corresponding month of same year was calculated, which is the disputed amount.
15. The approach adopted by the opposite parties is not in conformity with the established principles of law & rules. Firstly, the opposite parties have not given any notice to the complainant for charging such huge amount. Secondly, no audit report has been placed on record to prove the plea of the opposite parties that due to the audit report this amount was due against the complainant. Thirdly, no rule/regulation has been placed on record or has been shown to show that the opposite parties are competent to charge same number of units in August 2013, which were consumed by the complainant in the same month of succeeding year 2014.
16. As a result of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the present complaint is accepted to the extent that the impugned bill Ex.C-6 is liable to be set aside to the extent of Rs. 10,223/-. However, the opposite parties are at liberty to issue a fresh bill for the month of August 2013 mentioning the details of the amount & basis for its recovery if any. There is no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
9th Day of March, 2016.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
