Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/14/2017

Vikas Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Gulshan Rana

11 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR. 

 

Consumer Complaint No    :   14 of 2017

Date of Institution                      :      06.04.2017 

Date of Decision              :     11.01.2019      

Vikas Sharma (age about 40 years) S/o Surinder Sharma R/o Ward No.12, Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.

                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Sub Division Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Balachaur, District SBS Nagar.
2. XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Anandpur Sahib Road, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.
3. Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala.

Opposite parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:         

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

For Complainant  :         Sh.Gulshan Rana, Advocate

For OPs                :         Sh.P.K. Dhir, Advocate

ORDER 

PER SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant, wherein it is alleged that he is consumer of electric connection bearing No.N21UC120691X and he is paying all bill of electricity consumed by him since meter is installed. The detail of consumption of electricity for the last 18 months is as under:-

Date of Bill	New Reading	Old Reading	Total Unit	Meter Status	Bill Status	Sundry Charges	Total Bill	Amount paid
03.11.15	6564	5985	579	O	OK		3910	3910
31.12.15	6668	6564104	104	O	OK		590	590
01.03.16	6752	6668	84	O	OK		490	490
30.04.16	512	6752	116	F	AVG		440	3000	Meter was changed & new meter installed on from 512 reading onwards
01.07.16	1893	512	806	F	AVG		3090	3090
29.08.16	3220	55	1359	C	AVG		9980	9980
1.11.16	4104	3220	884	O	OK		6170	6170
01.1.17	4167	4104	63	O	Ok	7016	7400	7400	OP send bill of Rs.7016 sundry charges illegally
Total			767+ 3705				4990+ 27450	4990+ 30010

 

The meter was installed outside the premises of complainant and same was sealed by OPs.In the month of March 2016 the electricity supply was interrupted and complainant approached to OP No.1 regarding same problem and OP-1 checked and asked to complainant that meter is required to be changed.OP installed a new meter with new reading of 512 and also recorded reading of old meter as 6752 units and at the time of change of meter new meter was installed and properly sealed by OPs.After this the OPs started sending an average bill and collected huge amount on name of average bill.In the month of March 2017 Ops send a bill of Rs.7400/- with sundry charges of Rs.7016/- which complainant has already paid on 10.03.2017.Complainant has already paid all bills generated by OPs and complainant also paid Rs.3000/- instead of Rs.440/- of bill dated 30.04.2016.Total electricity consumption shown by new electric meter was 3705 units from March 2016 till 01.03.2017 and complainant paid Rs.30010/- to OPs and due to this OPs have already collected Rs.6000/- in excess.OPs have illegally fleeced an amount of Rs.7016/- from complainant. In total OPs fleeced Rs.13016/- from complainant.Lastly, it is prayed that OPs be directed to return amount of Rs.13016/- i.e. (a) Rs.7016/- illegally fleeced by OPs in the garb of electric bill (electric bill dated 01.03.2017) (b) Rs.6000/- illegally fleeced by OPs in garb of average consumption bill from March 2016 to 01.03.2017 and OPs be also directed to pay Rs.60,000/- as damages and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.  Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OPs appeared through its counsel and filed written reply whereby they contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. Complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hand and he has suppressed true and material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that electric meter has been installed in the premises of complainant.  On the request of complainant his meter is checked by JE concerned and found that outgoing phase not working and meter coil burnt.  After the meter was changed vide MCO dated 23.03.2016 at reading 06767 and new meter installed with initial reading of 00055.  After changing meter the bill were issued on average basis but the actual consumption were more than average basis.  The detail of difference of units consumed from 02.03.2016 to 01.07.2016 shown by bill cum show cause notice dated 16.02.2017 and speaking order dated 25.04.2017. When complainant did not reply the bill cum show notice dated 16.02.2017, the amount of Rs.7016/- for record entered as sundry charges.  It is admitted that Rs.13016/- deposited by complainant.  A prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. In order to prove the complaint, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-19 and closed the evidence.  Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Balwant Kishore – AEE Ex.OP/A, photocopies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 and then closed the evidence.
4. We have heard counsel for the complainant and also gone through complaint file alongwith documents very minutely.
5. Learned counsel for both the parties argued similar to their respective pleadings. So no need to reproduce for want of repetition.  It is admitted fact that the complainant is consumer of the OPs and having electric meter installed outside the premises of complainant by the OPs. Thus, he is entitled to file this complaint.   The stand of OPs is that they have passed speaking order of short assessment dated 25.04.2017.  Now question remains whether the said speaking order is legal, valid and according to electricity rules or not.  For that purpose, we have considered the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file by the both the parties and from the scrutiny of the speaking order it has become clear that the said order was passed in absence of complainant.  No receipt showing dispatch of said speaking to complainant is placed on record by OPs.  So under these circumstances, the said speaking order is not legal.  No doubt, the meter of the complainant was checked in ME Lab as per version of OPs but without following all the procedure i.e. meter not checked in the presence of complainant. As per Ex.OP-5, the signatures of the complainant are not similar to last page of complaint and verification thereof. Moreover, the OPs have installed new computerized electric meter with reading of 00055.  While previous meter reading was 06767. When Ops have installed new computerized meter then why they issued bill on average basis and why they mentioned actual consumption were more than average basis in Para No.3 of the reply on merits.  From this angle the Ops miserably failed to prove its stand.  As such with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that the OPs have not followed the proper procedure enumerated in the electricity rules. 
6. Accordingly, the speaking order dated 25.04.2017 Ex.OP-3 for recovery of Rs.7,016/- is hereby set aside and the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted. Further, the OPs are directed to pay compensation for mental harassment to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1000/-.  The above said entire compliance be made by the OPs within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7. Further, if any amount out of disputed amount already deposited by complainant, the same be adjusted in future consumption bills of complainant.
8. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 11.01.2019