Sohan Singh filed a consumer case on 14 May 2018 against PSPCL in the Nawanshahr Consumer Court. The case no is CC/58/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 18 May 2018.
Punjab
Nawanshahr
CC/58/2017
Sohan Singh - Complainant(s)
Versus
PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)
In person
14 May 2018
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR
Consumer Complaint No : 58 of 2017
Date of Institution : 22.12.2017
Date of Decision : 14.05.2018
Sohan Singh aged about 70 years son of Sh.Badri Nath, Resident of House No.256, Street No.1, Garhshankar Road, Nawanshahr, District Nawanshahr.
….Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Garhshankar Road Nawanshahr through Sub Divisional Officer.
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Garhshankar Road Nawanshahr through XEN.
Head Office, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Mall Road, Patiala through Chairman.
Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
S.A.P.S. RAJPUT, PRESIDENT
S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
For Complainant : In person
For OPs : Sh. P.K Dhir, Advocate
ORDER
PER S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER
This complaint filed by complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, it is averred that complainant is permanent resident of aforesaid address and doing labour and senior citizen. Complainant is permanent consumer of OPs vide account No.N43CF360076W. Earlier, complainant was live alone and from January 2017, he living with his grandson and his family. The detail of previous consumption of complainant is as under:-
Bill Date
Current and Previous Meter Consumption
Total Bill
Meter Status
Bill Type
Special Remarks
Meter changed
Rs.21210/- sundry charges added
Complainant previous bills reference from 09.12.2015 to 12.12.2017 meter status was OK. Maximum consumption from December 15 to December 2017 was 1218 units in the month of June 2017, OP-1 issued a bill on 12 December 2017 of Rs.23140/-, complainant consumption is as only 316 Units, out of this bill Rs.21210/- included/imposed as sundry charges from October 2015 to December 2017 which was not legal and complainant had no previous balance. That OPs did not issued any notice nor any detail issued by OPs. Complainant paid the bill amount regularly from time to time. Complainant approached to OP No.1&2 and requested for correct the bill but OPs told to complainant that you will pay the bill. There is no defect in the meter. The status of the meter is “O”. OP-1 again told to the complainant that you pay the total bill otherwise his meter will removed. Then complainant approached to this Forum for justice. Complainant prayed that OP-1 may kindly be directed to modify and correct the bill of complainant. The bill dated 12.12.2017 sundry charges of Rs.21210/- imposed by OPs may kindly be quashed. Complainant has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for financial loss and mentally harassment and Rs.25,000/- claimed as litigation expenses.
Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that this complaint is not maintainable. Complainant has no locus standi. Complainant is barred by his own act and conduct. Complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that complaint is consumer of OPs and it is also admitted that Rs.22210/- charged on account of sundry charges. As per report of meter reader dated 22.12.2016, the meter of complainant was defective. As the D code of the meter was declared and consumption was very-very less from October 2015 to December 2016. The account of the complainant was overhauled by audit party from October 2015 to December 2016. Because the consumption of previous year and succeeding year is on higher side, for e.g. the consumption in June 2016 was only 9 units, whereas the consumption in June 2015 was 462 units and consumption in June 2017 was 1218 which shows that the meter of the complainant was defective. OP-1 has sent the notice vide memo No.1287 dated 25.07.2017 to the complainant, demanding Rs.21210/- but the complainant neither given any reply of the same nor approached to OPs, thereafter meter of complainant was changed on 23.12.2016 vide MCO No.100003053131 in the presence of Parminder Kaur and she signed the MCO and gave her consent to OP-1 that her meter will be sent to ME Lab Goraya for checking and all the result of the ME Lab will be accepted to her. The meter was sent to ME Lab Goraya vide challan dated 06.03.2017. As per ME Lab report terminal block of meter was burnt. Rest of the averments have been denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
In order to prove complaint, complainant, tendered into evidence self declaration Ex.CW1/A, affidavit Ex.CW1/B, photocopy of electricity bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13, photocopy of Aadhar card Ex.C-14 and close the evidence.
In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for OPs tendered into evidence, affidavit of Balwant Kishore AE PSPCL Ex.OPA alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. consent letter Ex.OP-1, MCO Ex.OP-2, ME Lab report Ex.OP-3, consumption data Ex.OP-4, then tendered copy of audit report Ex.OP-5, then tendered bill cum show cause notice of short assessment dated 25.07.2017 Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.
We have heard counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file very carefully.
Complainant has argued that he is permanent consumer of OPs vide account No.N43CF360076W. Earlier, he was live alone and from January 2017, he living with his grandson and his family. He further argued that his previous bills reference from 09.12.2015 to 12.12.2017 meter status was OK. Maximum consumption from December 15 to December 2017 was 1218 units in the month of June 2017, OP-1 issued a bill on 12 December 2017 of Rs.23140/-, complainant consumption is as only 316 Units, out of this bill Rs.21210/- included/imposed as sundry charges from October 2015 to December 2017 which was not legal and complainant had no previous balance. He prayed that OP-1 may kindly be directed to modify and correct his bill. The bill dated 12.12.2017 sundry charges of Rs.21210/- imposed by OPs may kindly be quashed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs argued that this complaint is not maintainable. Complainant has no locus standi. It is further argued that complainant is consumer of OPs and it is also admitted that Rs.22210/- charged on account of sundry charges. As per report of meter reader dated 22.12.2016, the meter of complainant was defective. As the D code of the meter was declared and consumption was very-very less from October 2015 to December 2016. The account of the complainant was overhauled by audit party from October 2015 to December 2016. Because the consumption of previous year and succeeding year is on higher side, for e.g. the consumption in June 2016 was only 9 units, whereas the consumption in June 2015 was 462 units and consumption in June 2017 was 1218 which shows that the meter of the complainant was defective. OP-1 has sent the notice vide memo No.1287 dated 25.07.2017 to the complainant, demanding Rs.21210/- but the complainant neither given any reply of the same nor approached to OPs, thereafter meter of complainant was changed on 23.12.2016 vide MCO No.100003053131 in the presence of Parminder Kaur and she signed the MCO and gave her consent to OP-1 that her meter will be sent to ME Lab Goraya for checking and all the result of the ME Lab will be accepted to her and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
We find in Para No.3 of OP-3 written statement, report of meter reader dated 22.12.2016 vide which meter of complainant was defective and ‘D’ code was declared and meter was changed on 23.12.2016. But Ex.OP-4 shown the meter status “O” in December 2016. Moreover, in Ex.OP-5 at middle portion describes as meter status “D” defective code not found and meter in 2/17 without “D” code changed. But meter since 10/15 was defective. On the backside of Ex.OP-5 reproduced report prepared by officials of Ops that some consumers meter was defective since one year or more then one year. But meter reader did not found “D” code due to this reason, the department of OPs suffered huge financial lose. List was issued for these consumers which described very consumption variation. This variation was not checked by any employee/authority, what is major reason behind this variation if any official/employee checked its variation then it is possible at that time that the meter was defective. Now due to defective meter the department of OPs suffered financial loss which is liable for recover 3000415133-DS – Balwinder Kaur. On Ex.OP-1 neither signed by official of OPs nor mentioned any date. It depicts the irregularities by OPs toward the complainant. From Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 all the bills issued by OPs and meter status is mentioned as ‘O’.
Resultantly, in view of our above discussions, we find that this case is a fit case for negligency on the part of employee/officials of OPs so this complaint is partly allowed and Ex.C-1 – sundry charges of Rs.21210/- is hereby quashed. Complainant is a 70 years old person and a senior citizen and approached to OPs several times for correct the bill so OPs also liable to pay to complainant Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The above said entire compliance be made by the OPs within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order
Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.
File be indexed and consigned to record.
Dated 14.05.2018
(Kanwaljeet Singh) (A.P.S. Rajput)
Member President
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.