DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 81 of 25.2.2016

                                      Decided on:         19.2.2021

Usha Rajan w/o Jatinder Rajan aged about 37 years, resident of H.No.819, Gali No.9, Tripari Town, Patiala, presently R/o 762-B, Street No.8, Near Water Tank Tripari, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer West(Commercial) North Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member    

ARGUED BY              

                                       Sh.Mayank Malhotra, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.J.S.Sandhu, counsel for OPs.                         

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Usha Rajan  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s)

FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT

2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased the house from Sh.Satpal s/o Late Goverdhan Dass R/o 421,Gali No.6, Tripari Town Patiala on 13.6.2012, who had purchased the said house from Mohan Devi, in which electricity connection bearing a/c No.3000087904  with sanctioned load of 2.900KW under DS category is installed and the complainant has been using the same being legal owner of the house and has been paying the electricity consumption bills regularly.It is averred that the meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant on the electricity pole alongwith other meters since long.
3. It is averred that meter No.0001738874 of the complainant was changed on 19.10.2015 with a new meter No.337244 in a routine manner. Thereafter the complainant received electricity bill dated 21.10.2015 pertaining to meter No. 0001738874 for the period 17.8.2015 to 21.10.2015 showing the previous consumption reading as 43209 units and current reading as 169 units. The complainant paid the said bill on  5.11.2015.
4. It is further averred that he received bill dated 24.12.2015 for the period from 17.8.2015 to 24.12.2015 i.e. for 129 days for an amount of Rs.80430/-, whereas the complainant had already made the payment of bill dated 21.10.2015 for the period from 17.8.2015 to 21.10.2015. It is further averred that the OPs have issued bill dated 24.12.2015 of new meter No.337244 for the period from 17.8.2015 to 24.12.2015 for the consumption of 424 units as current charges whereas the bill dated 21.10.2015 shows that the meter had already consumed 169 units. Therefore the bill in question is illegal, null and void and is liable to be quashed.There is also deficiency in service on the part of the OPs which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
5. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to setaside the impugned bill dated 24.12.2015 and to accept the current cycle charges of 424 units  and also to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation.

REPLY/WRITTEN STATEMENT

6. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OPs who appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. It is submitted that the connection in dispute is in the name of Mohan Devi and the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint. It is admitted that the meter of the consumer was replaced vide meter change order dated 8.10.2015 which was effected on 20.10.2015 and a new meter was installed. The demand raised by the OP is related to actual consumption charges and  have issued the bill as per reading observed in the removed meter and the complainant is liable to make the payment of Rs.83,382/- but he had paid only Rs.2950/-.The electricity bill relates to the new meter and has been rightly raised by the OPs.There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7.  
7. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Deepak Goel,SDO alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP6 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10.  
10. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased the house from Goverdhan Dass vide sale deed dated 13.6.2012.The ld. counsel further argued that the complainant has been using the electricity connection being owner of the house  with total load of 2.999KW of DS category and meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant on the electricity pole. The ld. counsel further argued that the meter was changed and complainant was shocked when he received the bill of Rs.80430/-.This bill is totally vague. Hence the complaint be allowed.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has argued that the bill was sent for actual reading and there was no illegality and the complaint be dismissed.
12. To prove this case, complainant Usha Rajan has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint. On the other hand, on behalf of OPs Sh.Deepal Goel, SDO operation  has tendered his affidavit Ex.OPA and  he has deposed as per his written statement.
13. Exs.C1 and C2 are the important documents for the disposal of the case. Ex.C1 is the impugned bill of Rs.80430/-in which previous reading was taken on 17.8.2015 and the new reading was taken on 24.12.2015 and the meter was changed on 19.10.2015.After that the bill on 21.10.2015 was sent and this bill was for Rs.29032/-.Ex.C1 is the bill for the period 17.8.2015 to 24.12.2015 then how the bill 21.10.2015 can be sent. So it is clear that there is some lapse on the part of the OPs and it is clear as per the bill,Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.So it is clear that PSPCL has given deficient services and have given two contradictory bills on the file.
14. So due to our above discussion, the complaint stands partly allowed and the  OPs are directed to  send the average bill by taking average of previous two years consumption and the complainant is liable to pay the bill send by the OPs. The complainant is also held entitled to Rs.3000/-as compensation to be paid by the OPs. Compliance of the order be made by the  OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:19.2.2021       

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President