DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 488 of 21-10-2010 Decided on : 07-03-2011
Bachan Lal S/o Sh. Arjan Dass, aged about 80 years, R/o Ward No. 7, Ganeshcolony, Near Anandpur Kutia, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division, Maur, District Bathinda through its S.D.O./A.E.E. .... Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member For the Complainant : Sh. Lalit Garg, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.D. Nayyar, counsel for the opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant is having electric connection bearing A/c No. BK340063W installed in the residential house of the complainant. The sanctioned load of the said connection is 6.36 KW. The said house of the complainant where the connection in question was installed, was lying locked for the last about 2/3 years and the electric connection was not being used by the complainant. The electricity bills were being received by the complainant on minimum charges basis (MMC) i.e. upto Rs. 500/- bio-monthly which the complainant has been regularly depositing. Previously a meter No. 8240880 was installed in the premises of the complainant and the status of the meter was always 'O' but subsequently, the opposite parties installed new electronic meter bearing No. 1701364 outside the house of the complainant in a box as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties and even after installation of new electric meter, the complainant has been receiving bills on MMC basis and depositing the same regularly. In the month of March/April, 2010, the status of the meter in bill dated 2.4.2010 was shown as 'C' i.e. meter changed but in the subsequent bills, the status of the meter was shown as 'D' i.e. meter was defective although the meter was not defective. The status of the meter 'D' has been mentioned in the bills dated 1-6-2010 and 30-7-2010 inadvertently. The opposite parties issued a bill dated 1-10-2010 wherein the status of the meter is again shown to be 'D' and the opposite parties have demanded a sum of Rs. 4690/- on average basis. After receiving the said bill dated 1.10.2010, the complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 on 5-10-2010 and moved a representation for the correction of the said bill stating all the true facts that the premises in question was lying locked and connection was not being used. The said application was marked by the opposite party No. 2 to the concerned J.E. for inquiry and after due inquiry, the concerned J.E. and S.D.O. Maur, made a report on the said application dated 5.10.2010 that the premises in question was lying locked and the connection was not being used and that the meter installed in the premises is also not defective rather the same is OK and the bill may be corrected accordingly. The complainant also moved another application dated 7-10-2010 with opposite party No. 2 for disconnection of the electric connection in question. The complainant alleged that despite above said report dated 5-10-2010 made by the concerned JE and SDO, PSPCL Maur, and filing of application dated 7-10-2010, the opposite parties are neither correcting/adjusting the bill in question on MMC basis nor they are disconnecting the electric connection rather unnecessarily harassing and putting the pressure upon him to deposit the amount of Rs. 4690/-. The complainant pleaded that he is an old aged person of 80 years and is suffering from various old aged diseases but the opposite parties are unnecessarily harassing him. Hence, this complaint. The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and admitted that complainant is holding of electric connection in question. It has been pleaded that electric meter of the complainant had been changed with an electronic one and was installed outside the premises of the complainant as per the policy of the opposite parties. As per report of meter reader , the meter of the complainant was not showing any consumption and as such, as per the software in the computer, the same started taking 'D' code and the bill was issued as per the computer on 'D' code for Rs. 4690/-. On the request of the complainant, the meter of the complainant was checked by the concerned JE and as per his report, the meter was installed outside the house and was not showing the reading due to the house having been locked. As per procedure the 'D' code in the software of the meter could only be changed after changing the meter and as such, the opposite parties at their own cost changed the meter for the computer to take 'O' code. The complainant had been time and again informed that his account shall be overhauled after the change of the meter and he would be charged either on the basis of fresh reading (since the complainant had already started consuming electricity) or else on the basis of MMC and that would be possible only after the computer took the 'C' code that is the change of meter and then the 'O' code. But the complainant did not agree to the same and instead opted to file the present complaint. The opposite parties have pleaded that the meter has been changed without charging anything from the complainant and even he has been given the option to overhaul his account as such, there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties even now are willing to overhaul the account of the complainant. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that an electric connection bearing A/c No. BK340063W has been installed in his house with sanction load of 6.36 K.W. The said house has been locked for the last about 2-3 years. Since, no electricity was being consumed, the electricity bills were being issued on minimum charges basis (MMC). The opposite parties issued a bill dated 1-10-2010 for Rs. 4690/- wherein the status of the meter has been shown as 'D' . After receiving the said bill, the complainant approached the opposite parties and made representation for the correction of the bill stating true facts. The said application was marked by opposite party No. 2 to the concerned J.E. for inquiry and after inquiry, the concerned J.E. and SDO made a report on the application that premises in question was locked, connection was not being used, the meter is not defective and accordingly the bill may be corrected. But till date, the opposite parties have not corrected/adjusted the bill. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that electric meter of the complainant has been changed with an electronic one and was installed outside the premises of the complainant as per policy of the opposite parties. As per report of meter readers, the meter of the complainant was not showing any consumption and as per software in the computer, the same started taking 'D' code and the bill was issued for Rs. 4690/-. On the request of the complainant, the matter was inquired into and the version of the complainant was found correct. He further submitted that to change the code of meter, the opposite parties have changed the meter without charging anything from the complainant and the complainant has been given the option to get his account over- hauled. The opposite parties have admitted that the electric meter in question has been installed outside the house of the complainant and since the house of the complainant had been locked for the last 2-3 years, the bills were being issued to the complainant on MMC. As per report of meter reader the meter was not showing consumption and the computer, as per software, shown code 'D' and accordingly, the opposite parties issued bill dated 1-10-2010 for Rs. 4690/-. After receiving the bill dated 1-10-2010, the complainant approached the opposite parties on 5-10-2010 and moved representation narrating the facts and the opposite parties inquired into the matter and even after finding the version of the complainant correct, they did nothing and ultimately, the complainant had to knock the door of this Forum to get his grievances redressed. The opposite parties have pleaded that as per reading/remarks given by meter reader, their computer took code 'D' as per software and now code 'O' could be made after replacement of meter and thereafter bill could be corrected. If the software of the computer of opposite parties has such type of option, the consumers cannot be penalised or harassed for that. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising the impugned demand of Rs. 4690/- without any basis. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 500/- as compensation and cost and the impugned demand of Rs. 4690/- raised vide bill dated 1-10-2010 is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant and issue the bills to him on Minimum Charges Basis. 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 to record.
Pronounced 07-03-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr.Phulider Preet) Member
|
