Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/347

Talwinderjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Iqbal Kaushal

04 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :       347 of 2017

Date of Institution :  25.10.2017

Date of Decision :     4.02.2019

Talwinderjeet Singh aged about 22 years s/o Lakhwinder Singh Sandhu son of Shabeg Singh Sandhu, r/o Bhan Singh Colony, Street No.2,  District Faridkot.

                                                                   ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala through its Chairman / Managing Director.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Faridkot through its XEN.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd,  City Sub Division, Faridkot through its SDO/Assistant Executive Engineer, Faridkot.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. (Ajit Aggarwal), President.

                Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Iqbal Kaushal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Mohan Singh  Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab

                       Complaint No- 347 of 2017

State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to correct the bills for the period from 26.11.2016 to 27.12.2016 and  31.08.2017 to 28.09.2017 and for further directing Ops to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Jarnail Kaur wife of Kartar Singh was owner of the house where domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. F31GT-310072 H was installed in the name of her husband Kartar Singh who used to pay all the bills as per consumption charges. It is submitted that during her life time, said Jaranil Kaur vide registered will bequeathed her entire property in the name of her daughter Gurmeet Kaur, who was mother of complainant and it was recited in said will that after the death of Gurmeet Kaur, complainant would be entitled to inherit the estate of Jarnail Kaur. During her life time, said Gurmeet Kaur was in actual and physical possession of house where electric connection in question stands installed. Mother of complainant died on 16.04.2008 and after her death, complainant has become owner of her house and is in actual possession of said electric connection. He has been regularly paying all the bills as and when received. Meter Code of complainant is ‘O’. It is submitted that since last ten months OPs have been claiming huge and excessive bills by adding lacs of rupees by way of arrears. Though clear reading is shown on the meter, but Ops are not sending bills to him as per actual consumption and bill are being issued to him by adding huge

Complaint No- 347 of 2017

and excessive amount by way of arrears. Complainant deposited Rs.50,000/-with OPs on 18.08.2017 under protest and on assurance of OPs that in future, they would issue him bills as per actual meter reading, but despite deposition of this amount and assurances given by them, they have not issued him correct bills. Every time they are claiming huge amount on account of arrears. It is further submitted that bills for the period from 22.09.2016 to 1.11.2016 and 29.08.2016 to 27.09.2016 are shown as -3083 and -2929, meaning thereby, nothing is due and recoverable by Ops from complainant. complainant made several requests to Ops to issue him correct bills as per his actual consumption, but all in vain and they have paid no heed to the genuine requests of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice 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 correct the bills and prayed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 26.10.2017, 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 that complainant is

Complaint No- 347 of 2017

not the consumer of answering OPs as connection in question is not in the name of complainant, rather it is in the name of Kartar Singh husband of Jarnail Kaur. It is averred that complainant has no concern with the connection of Kartar Singh as he has never submitted any application and agreement form for the change of name. Neither he submitted any meter security or test report nor he has complied with the mandatory rules and regulations of PSPCL. As per rules, in the event of death of consumer, his successors should apply for the change of name on the A & A form in the name of one of the heirs alongwith death certificate, succession certification and no objection certificate from other heirs to the connection being transferred in the name of one of heirs, but in present case, no legal heir of Kartar Singh complied with the mandatory provisions of PSPCL and as such, complainant is not the consumer of OPs. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is asserted that no intimation regarding death of Kartar Singh /original consumer was ever given by complainant to OPs and connection in question is still in the name of Kartar Singh and as per their record Kartar Singh is the real owner of connection in question. It is further averred that bill dated 20.11.2014 for 1665 units for the period from 10.08.2014 to 22.11.2014 for Rs.12,474/- upto the reading of 18236 was issued to complainant. At that time, sap system was not working properly. Correct bill dated 21.11.2016 for the period from 11.02.2015 to 1.11.2016 was issued for

Complaint No- 347 of 2017

Rs.1,37,322/- and in this bill previous wrongly issued bills by sap system were adjusted. Complainant did not make payment of this bill. It is averred that previous adjustment has already been made in the bill dated 21.11.2016 and thereafter, correct bills are being issued. Complainant deposited only Rs18,995/- upto November, 2016 and after that he deposited Rs.50,000/-in compliance of the order of this Forum and total amount of Rs.2,23,970/-is still due and recoverable towards him and Ops have every right to recover the same from complainant. 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 16 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-15 and closed the evidence.

7                                   We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

8                                The ld Counsel for complainant argued that   Jarnail Kaur wife of Kartar Singh was real owner of the house

Complaint No- 347 of 2017

where connection  in question is installed in the name of her husband Kartar Singh who used to pay all the bills as per consumption charges. Said Jaranil Kaur vide registered will bequeathed her entire property in the name of her daughter Gurmeet Kaur, who was mother of complainant and after the death of Gurmeet Kaur, complainant inherited the estate of said Jarnail Kaur. Mother of complainant was in actual  possession of house where electric connection in question is installed. After death of his mother, complainant became owner of her house and is in actual possession of said electric connection and has been regularly paying charges. Meter Code of complainant is ‘O’. Since last ten months OPs have been claiming huge and excessive bills by adding lacs of rupees as arrears. Though clear reading is shown on the meter, but Ops are not sending bills as per actual consumption, rather bills are being issued to him by adding huge and excessive amount as arrears. Complainant deposited Rs.50,000/-with OPs on 18.08.2017 on assurance of OPs that in future, they would issue correct bills as per actual meter reading, but despite deposition of this amount and assurances given by them, they have not issued right bills. Bills for the period from 22.09.2016 to 1.11.2016 and 29.08.2016 to 27.09.2016 are shown as -3083 and -2929, meaning thereby nothing is due towards him. Complainant made several requests to Ops to issue him correct bills as per his actual consumption, but all in vain and they have paid no heed to the genuine requests of complainant. This act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to him. He has prayed

Complaint No- 347 of 2017

for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

9                              To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Main plea taken by Ops is that complainant is not their consumer as  connection in question is not in the name of complainant and it is in the name of Kartar Singh husband of Jarnail Kaur. Complainant has no concern with the connection in question as he did not submit any application and agreement form for the change of name. Neither he submitted any meter security or test report nor complied with the mandatory rules and regulations of PSPCL. As per rules, in the event of death of consumer, his successors should apply for the change of name on the A & A form in the name of one of the heirs alongwith death certificate, succession certification and no objection certificate from other heirs for the connection being transferred in the name of one of heirs, but in present case, no legal heir of Kartar Singh complied with the mandatory provisions of PSPCL and as such, complainant is not their consumer.  OPs have denied all the allegations being incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Moreover, no intimation regarding death of Kartar Singh /original consumer was ever given by complainant to OPs and connection in question is still in the name of Kartar Singh and as per their record Kartar Singh is the real owner of connection in question. It is averred that bill dated 20.11.2014 for 1665 units for the period from 10.08.2014 to 22.11.2014 for

Complaint No- 347 of 2017

Rs.12,474/-was issued to complainant. At that time, sap system was not working properly. Correct bill dated 21.11.2016 for the period from 11.02.2015 to 1.11.2016 was issued for Rs.1,37,322/-and in this bill previous wrongly issued bills by sap system were adjusted. Complainant did not make payment of this bill.  Previous adjustment has already been made in the bill dated 21.11.2016 and thereafter, correct bills are being issued. Complainant deposited only Rs18,995/- upto November, 2016, thereafter, he deposited Rs.50,000/- and now, total amount of Rs.2,23,970/-is still due and recoverable towards him. OPs have every right to recover the same from complainant. 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 to dismiss the complaint.

10                                  The case of the complainant is that he has a domestic electric connection in his house and he is regularly paying all the bills for on account of electricity charges. Main contention of complainant is that Ops have issued him wrong excessive bills for the period from 26.11.2016 to 27.12.2016 till 31.08.2017 to 28.09.2017 though bills for the period from 22.09.2016 to 1.11.2016 and  29.08.2016 to 27.09.2016  are shown as -3083 and -2929. Main grievance of complainant is that OPs have not corrected the said bills despite repeated requests and all this amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand plea taken by OPs is that complainant is not their consumer, but also admitted before the Forum that wrong bills were sent

Complaint No- 347 of 2017

to complainant due to some problem in sap system and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

11                         Now, it is the admitted case of the parties that complainant has been using the domestic connection installed in his premises. It is further admitted that Ops issued bills in question for the period from 26.11.2016 to 27.12.2016 and for the period from 31.08.2017 to 28.09.2017. It is admitted by Ops that bills for the period from 22.09.2016 to 1.11.2016 and 29.08.2016 to 27.09.2016 are showing negative consumption charges. As per Ops their sap system was not working properly and due to this wrong bills were issued to complainant. However, after correction of sap system, correct bills have been issued and amount of Rs.2,23,970/-is still due towards him, which complainant is liable to pay.

 12                               The objection raised by Ops  that connection in question is installed in the name of Kartar Singh and thus, complainant is not their consumer and cannot file the present complaint against them and therefore, complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed, has no legs to stand upon as complainant has specifically pleaded in complaint that place where connection in dispute was installed was in the name of Jarnail Kaur, which was inherited by her daughter Gurmeet Kaur on the basis of will and Gurmeet Kaur mother of complainant further transferred the said house where connection is installed in the name of complainant and he has been using the same since long time and

Complaint No- 347 of 2017

being legal heir of his mother Gurmeet Kaur, he is duly authorized to file the complaint regarding bills in question being beneficiary. He produced copy of will made by Jarnail Kaur in favour of his daughter Gurmeet Kaur as Ex C-12 as such, the complainant has right to file the present complaint. In support of his version, he has put reliance on citation 1999 (2) CLT (134) Joginder Singh Vs PSEB wherein our Hon’ble State Commission held that not only the actual person who hires the services of OPs is to be considered as consumer under Consumer Protection Act, but also the beneficiary of such contract of hiring the services of OPs. In the present complaint also, the complainant is using the electricity connection in question being legal heir of Gurmeet Kaur as its beneficiary user. Therefore, complainant is authorized and fully falls within the definition of consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

13                                 Admittedly, wrong bills were issued due improper working of sap system. The version of the OPs is that due to fault in sap system, the bills for consumption for the period from 11.02.2015 to 1.11.2016 was wrongly issued to complainant. On 21.11.2016, the Ops adjusted the wrongly issued previous bills by making adjustment of earlier bills and issued  bill dated 21.11.2016 for Rs.1,37,222/-. There is no illegality in this bill and it is issued on the basis of actual consumption as per rules. Admittedly, the billing system of OPs called Sap failed and was not recording the true consumption and the bill was not issued correctly by OPs themselves. Ops failed to

Complaint No- 347 of 2017

produce any evidence on record to prove that for which period their billing system called Sap failed and how they calculated the amount in question. Whereas as per Rules and Regulations of PSPCL in case the meter found defective then, account of consumer will be overhauled on the basis of consumption of corresponding period of previous year. The relevant regulations of PSPCL given in section 21.04 (g) (ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 vide notification no.PSERC/Secy/Regu.31 dated June, 29, 2007 are reproduced as hereunder:

“The account of a consumer will be overhauled for the period a defective meter remained at site and for the period of direct supply, on the basis of energy consumption of the corresponding period of the previous year after calibrating for the changes in load, if any. In case the average consumption for the corresponding period of previous year is not available then, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicted in para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous/succeeding year.

14                                  In the instant case, the average consumption for the corresponding period of the previous year must be available with the Ops, so in view of aforementioned section 21.4 (g) ( ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, the consumer will

Complaint No- 347 of 2017

be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicated in Para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of previous year.

15                              In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and the impugned demand raised by Ops from complainant vide bill dated 21.11.2016  is set aside and quashed. However, Ops are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period i.e 1.02.2015 to 1.11.2016 by overhauling his account on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year. Ops are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.50,000/-, if deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 18.08.2017 passed by this Forum in subsequent bills. 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 : 4.02.2019

 

(Param Pal Kaur)            (Ajit Aggarwal)

Member                                     President