DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.473 of 14-10-2010 Decided on 09-03-2011
Bikramjit Bansal, aged about 55 years, son of Sh.Munshi Ram, r/o Street No.9-B, Ajit Road, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Bathinda, through its S.E. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Cantt., Bathinda, through its S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala, through its Secretary.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Mahesh Chaudhary, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Lovenish Garg, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. 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 brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding electric connection A/c No.B11KL490411Y. The opposite parties have installed the meter No.2618 in the premises of the complainant which was shown dead from the month of March 2010. The opposite parties have been sending the electricity bill on average basis. The electricity bill is showing the changed meter reading and consumption of units is charged in all the bills without any basis. The opposite parties had sent a bill in the month of March 2010 wherein the meter reading was shown as 19121 units old and 19228 units new whereas the status of the meter is shown as 'D' and the consumption of units has been shown as 316 units. In the electricity bill of May 2010, the meter reading was shown as 19228 old and 19614 new whereas the status of the meter is shown as 'D' and the consumption of units as 599 units. In the same manner, the bill has been sent for the month of July 2010 wherein the meter reading was shown as 19614 units old and new 19999 and the status of the meter is shown as 'D' and the consumption of units has been shown as 1903 units. The opposite parties again sent the electricity bill for the month of September 2010 wherein the meter reading was shown as 19999 units old and 20307 units new and the status of the meter is shown as 'D' and the consumption of units has been shown as 1903 units. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties have failed to replace the dead meter. The complainant has further alleged that on the one side where the status of the meter is 'D', they are sending the bill on the basis of consumed units. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint for seeking directions to the opposite parties to rectify the bill as per actual consumption and he is ready to deposit the actual bill. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the meter bearing No.2618 installed in the premises of the complainant, was defective/dead bearing code 'D'. The opposite parties have charged the bill from June 2009 on the basis of corresponding months by increasing connected load method as per ESR 73.1.2 & 73.1.3 and the bills were sending to the complainant on the basis of LxDxHxF formula. In the month of June 2009, the meter was found dead and the bill was charged on the basis of corresponding months by increasing connected load method. When the bill has been charged on the basis of corresponding method, no weightage is given to the meter reading and also in the month of May 2010, the bill was charged by the opposite parties on the same basis. In the month of July 2010, the old meter reading was shown as 19614 units and new 19999 units. The meter of the complainant was dead. The bill has been charged on LxDxHxF formula i.e. 7.80x30x8x30/100x2 = 1903 and in the month of September 2010, the bill was also charged on LxDxHxF formula, the units have rightly been calculated by the opposite parties on the basis of formulas as mentioned above. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The main allegation of the complainant in this complaint is that the status of his meter was 'D' which means defective/dead but the opposite parties have been sending the bill on the basis of consumed units. All the bills mentioned by the complainant from May to September, the old and new reading are being shown and the bill has been sent according to the consumed units. The opposite parties in reply to this, have submitted that the bill has been sent to the complainant on the basis of LxDxHxF formula as per consumption of previous correspondence months. 6. A perusal of documents placed on file Ex.C-2 dated 23.03.2010 shows that the bill has been sent on average basis, the bill status is MMC and old reading is 19121 and new reading 19228 and status of the meter is 'D'; Ex.C-3 dated 22.05.2010 shows that the bill status is Average, the status of the meter is 'D' and the reading is 19228 old and 19614 new; Ex.C-4 dated 23.07.2010 shows that the meter status 'D' and the bill has been sent on average basis, the old reading is 19614 and new 19999 and Ex.C-5 dated 24.09.2010 shows that the status of the meter is 'D', the bill has been sent on average basis, the reading recorded old as 19999 units and new 20307 units. In this bill, the consumption of new meter has been shown as 1903 units which they have also shown in Ex.C-4 dated 23.07.2010. 7. The opposite parties have submitted that they have sent the bill to the complainant as per para No.73.1.1 which is reproduced as under :- “On receipt of a report regarding meter becoming defective, dead stop or burnt, it should be immediately replaced and necessary inquiries conducted. The meter alongwith the report should be forwarded to Xen/ME for further action.” and if they have sent the bill according to 73.1.2 which is read as under :- “So far as charging the consumer for the period the meter remained inoperative is concerned, average consumption of last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption as under and higher of the two figures shall be charged to set the consumer's account right finally. Consumption Per Cycle DS Consumers NRS Consumers 1. Upto 2 KW Load 100 units/KW 100 units/KW 2. Exceeding 2 KW 200+60 units/KW 200+60 units/KW and upto 5 KW of load in excess of of load in excess of 2 KW 2 KW 3. Load exceeding 5kw 380+40 units/kw of 760+80 units/kw of load in excess of 5kw load in excess of 5kw” 8. In the present case, the opposite parties have wrongly sent the bill on LxDxHxF formula whereas the applicable formula in the present case is according to clause 73.1.2 as per Ex.R-3. The complainant has been issued a bill on the basis of LxDxHxF formula i.e. 7.80x30x8x30/100x2 = 1903 whereas it has been sent to the complainant according to ESR 73.1.2 and 73.1.3 according to NRS connection. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant and adjust the amount of Rs.7,100/- if it had been already paid seeking stay vide order dated 03.11.2010 towards his pending bills and if the amount exceeds then the remaining amount out of Rs.7,100/- would be refunded back with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of deposit till realization. Compliance of this order be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 09-03-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member | 
