Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/179

Surinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

18 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :       179

Date of Institution :  1.07.2016

Date of Decision :    18.04.2017

Surinder Kumar aged about 65 years s/o Sh Hari Chand r/o Factory Road, (Sham Nagar), Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer OP City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd  Kotkapura District Faridkot.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               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 set aside the demand of Rs.64,025/-raised vide letter dt 02.06.2016 and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 11,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. GT-44/0160 (A/c No.3002338352 and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a letter dt 2.06.2016 for Rs.64025/- in which Rs.41144/-were charged on the basis of reading shown by ME Lab and Rs.22,981/-are raised on account of correction of bill of billing cycle 8/2015, which is quite illegal as meter of complainant was defective and it was not recording correct consumption. It is submitted that complainant paid the bill dt 7.09.2015 for Rs.13197 and bill dated 3.10.2015 for Rs.9610/- and meter of complainant was changed in October, 2015 and bill issued in 11/2015 of 1073 units also included the 250 units of new meter and this bill of Rs.8560/-was deposited by complainant on 10.11.2015. it is submitted that amount charged vide letter in question for Rs.41144/-for 5244 units is illegal as complainant has already deposited the bill issued by Ops and moreover, meter of complainant was defective and was changed and it was never checked in his presence in ME Lab. As per detail given in demand letter, Rs.22981/- have charged as wrong adjustment shown in billing cycle 8/2015, but the bill for billing cycle 8/15 issued by Ops for1073 units for Rs.8560/-, which was deposited by complainant on 10.11.2015 and he never got any adjustment of Rs.22,981/-in billing cycle 8/2015 and this demand of Rs.22,981/-is illegal and unlawful. It is further submitted that on receiving the said letter, complainant immediately approached Ops and requested them to withdraw the demand of sundry charges, but OP-2 refused to do so and threatened him to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 11.07.2016, 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 OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and even present connection was being used by complainant for commercial purpose, thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that notice in question was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the said amount but he did not deposit the same. Ld counsel for Ops averred that meter of complainant was D code in the month of 4.08.2015 and reading was 28868 units, but inadvertently, Bill Reader showed the reading of meter as 23644 and this reading of meter showing 28868 is also written on the challan no.33 dated 6.11.2015 and thus, the difference of 5244 units remained uncharged by Ops. Complainant never paid any charges for 5244 units. It is further averred that bills for the month of 6/2015 and 7/2015 were sent on average basis. The bill for June, 2015 ws for Rs.12930/- and bill for the month of July, 2015 was for Rs.9920/- and this amount was refunded to complainant in the billing cycle of 08/2015. Thus, complainant never paid any amount for these months on account of consumption and therefore, notice for a sum of Rs.64,025/-was sent to complainant to pay this amount and it includes Rs.41144/-on account of consumption of 5244 units and Rs.22881/-on account of bills refunded to complainant. All the amount is charged as per rules and regulation and it is that any amount has been charged illegally. It is reiterated that 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 13 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harinder Singh Chehal as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-7 and closed the evidence.

7                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                            Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant has a domestic electric connection and he is the consumer of Ops. He is regularly paying all the electricity bills to Ops and nothing is due as electricity charges. It is contended that complainant received a letter dt 2.06.2016 for Rs.64025/- in which Rs.41144/-were charged on the basis of reading shown by ME Lab and Rs.22,981/-are raised on account of correction of bill of billing cycle 8/2015, which is quite illegal as meter of complainant was defective and it was not recording correct consumption. It is submitted that complainant paid the bill dt 7.09.2015 for Rs.13197 and bill dated 3.10.2015 for Rs.9610/- and meter of complainant was changed in October, 2015 and bill issued in 11/2015 of 1073 units also included the 250 units of new meter and this bill of Rs.8560/-was deposited by complainant on 10.11.2015. it is submitted that amount charged vide letter in question for Rs.41144/-for 5244 units is illegal as complainant has already deposited the bill issued by Ops and moreover, meter of complainant was defective and was changed and it was never checked in his presence in ME Lab. As per detail given in demand letter, Rs.22981/- have charged as wrong adjustment shown in billing cycle 8/2015, but the bill for billing cycle 8/15 issued by Ops for1073 units for Rs.8560/-, which was deposited by complainant on 10.11.2015 and he never got any adjustment of Rs.22,981/-in billing cycle 8/2015 and this demand of Rs.22,981/-is illegal and unlawful. It is further submitted that on receiving the said letter, complainant immediately approached Ops and requested them to withdraw the demand of sundry charges, but OP-2 refused to do so and threatened him to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. All these acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and due to these acts of OPs, complainant has faced great mental tension, agony and harassment. He has prayed that OPs may be directed to withdraw the demand of this amount and also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

9                              To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this case. The Ops have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees and complainant should approach such committees to settle his dispute, so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is argued that notice in question was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the amount but he did not do so. Ld counsel for Ops further averred that meter of complainant was D code in the month of 4.08.2015 and reading was 28868 units, but inadvertently, Bill Reader showed the reading of meter as 23644 and this reading of meter showing 28868 is also written on the challan no.33 dated 6.11.2015 and thus, the difference of 5244 units remained uncharged by Ops. Complainant never paid any charges for 5244 units. It is further averred that bills for the month of 6/2015 and 7/2015 were sent on average basis. The bill for June, 2015 was for Rs.12930/- and bill for the month of July, 2015 was for Rs.9920/- and this amount was refunded to complainant in the billing cycle of 08/2015. Thus, complainant never paid any amount for these months on account of consumption and therefore, notice for a sum of Rs.64,025/-was sent to complainant to pay this amount and it includes Rs.41144/-on account of consumption of 5244 units and Rs.22881/-on account of bills refunded to complainant. All the amount is charged as per rules and regulation and it is denied that any amount has been charged illegally. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. The demand raised by OPs is legal and OPs have every right to recover this amount from complainant. The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complainant against the OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

 10                                 We have carefully gone through the record and have thoroughly perused the documents available on record file.

11                            The case of the complainant is that he has a domestic electric connection issued by OPs in his house and he is regularly paying all the bill of electricity charges. He received letter dt 2.06.2016 wherein amount for Rs.64,025/- is raised and as per letter Rs.41144/- are charged on the basis of reading shown by ME Lab and Rs.22,981/-are raised on account of correction of bill of billing cycle 8/2015. As per complainant, he has paid the bill dt 7.09.2015 for Rs.13197 and bill dated 3.10.2015 for Rs.9610/-and nothing is due towards him. Meter of complainant was changed in October, 2015 and it was never checked in his presence in ME Lab. As per detail given in demand letter, Rs.22981/- have been charged as wrong adjustment shown in billing cycle 8/2015, but the bill for billing cycle 8/15 issued by Ops for1073 units for Rs.8560/-, which was deposited by complainant on 10.11.2015 and he never got any adjustment of Rs.22,981/-in billing cycle 8/2015 and this demand of Rs.22,981/-is illegal and unlawful. Grievance of complainant is that despite several requests made by him, Ops did not withdrew the demand for alleged amount, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant and stressed mainly on the point that amount in question is due towards complainant and they have right to recover the same.

12                               Ld Counsel for Ops argued that they have charged amount in question as per rules and regulations of Ops. The old meter of complainant was defective and on 4.08.2015, the same was replaced. At the time of changing the meter the reading of the meter was 28,868 units, which is also recorded in the store challan but inadvertently, the Ops issued bill to the complainant only for consumption of 23644 units and difference between 23644 to 28868 i.e 5244 remains uncharged and complainant never paid for these units. So, Ops correctly issued demand notice for this consumption. He further argued that Ops sent bills for 6/2015 and 7/2015 on average basis for Rs.12,930/- and Rs.9920/- respectively, but this amount refunded to complainant in bill 8/2015. This adjustment was made wrongly so, they sent notice for recovering Rs.64,025/- i.e Rs.41144/-on account of difference in consumption and Rs.22,881/-of wrong adjustment made in the bill 8/2015 and they are entitled to recover this amount.

13                        We have thoroughly gone through evidence and documents produced by the parties. The case of the Ops is that at the time of changing the old meter, the net reading of the meter was 28868 units, but they issued bill only up to 23644 units and now they demanded the difference. On the other hand, Ops themselves produced copy of the bill dated 2.11.2015 wherein they issued bill upto reading 27505 showing old reading 23644 and new 27505. Copy of the bill is Ex OP-5. They also produced copy of statement of accounts of complainant as Ex OP-6, in which it is clear that Ops issued bill for 27505 units so, they cannot say that they have only issued bill upto 23644 units whereas in their own record, they have issued bill upto 27505. 2^nd ground of Ops is that they demanded Rs.22,881/-which is wrongly adjusted in the bill circle 08/2015 which was charged in billing circle June-July/2015. The Ops produced copy of bill for billing cycle 06/2015 and 07/2015 as Ex OP-4. In bill circle 6/2015 they issued bill for Rs.12960/- for 1693 units stating old reading as 23644 and new as 25337 and bill for July/2015, they demanded Rs.9920/-for 1295 units stating old reading as 25337 and new 26632. These bills paid by complainant to Ops, then the next bill 8/2015 Ex OP-5 issued for old reading 23644 and new reading 27505 which includes the consumption for the bill 6/2015 and 7/2015. So, the adjustment of Rs.22881/- paid by complainant for bill 6/2015 and 7/2015 correctly made and now, the Ops cannot claim this amount again. However, Ops are entitled for the difference of consumption actually recorded as 28868 and billed for 27505 i.e 1363 units.

14                     Hence, from the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed. Ops are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.64,025/-made by them vide memo no 1487 dated 2.06.2016 ExC-2 and to overhaul the account of complainant and to charge the difference of actual consumption 28868 and bill consumption 27505 from complainant. The Ops are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.22,000/-deposited by complainant with them vide order dated 11.07.2016 of this Forum. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 18.04.2017

                                       Member                          President                                         (P Singla)                           (Ajit Aggarwal)