DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.639 of 2016

                                                 Date of institution:  26.09.2016                                                     Date of decision   :  22.03.2018

Vipin Toor son of Sardar Singh, resident of House No.188, Shivalik Vihar, Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar.

…….Complainant

Vs

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its SDO, Zirakpur.

2.     Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Zirakpur.

3.     SDO, P.S.P.C.L., Zirakpur.

……..Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for complainant.

                Shri Pankaj Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant after purchase of house in August, 2006, got the electricity connection transferred in his name and thereafter has become consumer of the OPs. Average consumption of electricity units remained in the range of 500 to 800 units for period of two months.  Details of the bills are given below:

                However, bill dated 13.05.2016 of an amount of Rs.2,63,580/- was received by complainant and thereafter he approached OP No.2 and 3 with request to rectify the bill. The complainant claims that in 5 marlas house, he has never consumed exorbitant units of electricity. OP No.2 called upon complainant to pay amount of Rs.7,000/- and assured that bill dated 13.05.2016 will be rectified with change of electricity meter also. Amount of Rs.125/- was called upon to be deposited by complainant for change of electricity meter and the said amount was deposited by complainant through receipt dated 16.05.2016. After few days, the electricity meter was changed with assurance to complainant that he will not face similar difficulty in future. The removed electricity meter was sent to Govt. Lab. at Rajpura for testing purpose. Thereafter complainant received electricity bill dated 09.09.2016 showing consumption of 900 units with charges payable by him of amount of Rs.5,328/-. In this bill also previous amount of Rs.2,63,580/- was added for raising demand of Rs.2,67,150/-. Complainant again approached OP No.2 and 3 for rectifying the bill, but they instead of doing so started threatening the complainant to deposit the entire amount. Despite running by complainant from pillar to post, he could not get the electricity bill in question rectified. Rather complainant claims that he is apprehending as if his electricity connection will be disconnected. By pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, prayer made for restraining the OPs from disconnecting the electricity connection. Even prayer made for setting aside the electricity bill dated 09.09.2016 of amount of Rs.2,67,150/-.  Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1.00 lakh also claimed.

2.             In reply filed by OPs, it is pleaded inter alia as if this Forum has no jurisdiction because complainant should approach Disputes Redressal Committee constituted under Electricity Act, 2003 and that complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands because he has concealed the material and true facts. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on part of OPs. Rather the bills in question were issued on the basis of actual consumption and after making due calculations as per rules. Bill issued in the month of March, 2016 was regarding N code and the same was issued on average basis. N code means reading not taken. Thereafter when the reading was taken for May, 2016, then the actual reading was 42133 units and bill for consumed 34100 units was issued. At that time meter status was OK. Admittedly complainant after receipt of bill approached OPs with written request for challenging the meter in ME Lab in Ropar. Self declaration alongwith requisite fee was also paid by complainant. Old meter was changed vide MCO No.006 and new meter No.8714007 was installed again on 16.05.2016. Last reading of the old meter was 45953 units. New meter started with reading from 1 unit. Removed meter was sealed and thereafter sent for checking in ME Lab. Ropar. Report therefrom was received on 12.09.2016 and the same was in favour of OPs. Meter was found dead in the Lab. As the bill issued on actual consumption basis and as such it is claimed that complainant bound to pay the bill amount. It is claimed that except the consumed units reading through electric meter, there is no other way out for calculating the consumption of units. It is claimed that it is unbelievable that particular meter will run fast in a particular circle, while the functioning remains proper for the rest of time. Receipt of payment with respect of earlier issued electricity bills alleged to be matter of record. No cause of action alleged to have accrued to complainant. Rather it is claimed that complainant is leveling allegations without substance and as such prayer made for dismissal of the false and vexatious complaint.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and thereafter closed evidence.  Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Amanpreet Singh Mavi alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments in this case submitted by both the parties.   Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Undisputedly complainant is consumer of OPs regarding electricity meter in question. Challenge to bill Ex.C-9 dated 13.05.2016 given on the ground that demanded amount of Rs.2,63,580/- is exorbitant and illegal. After going through this bill Ex.C-9, it is made out that arrear of previous year of Rs.2,19,939/- is added in this bill alongwith balance recoverable amount of Rs.29,056/-. Miscellaneous expenses amount Rs.3,410/- and other miscellaneous concessions of Rs.11,175/- also claimed in it. It was after receipt of this bill Ex.C-9 that complainant filed application Ex.C-10 dated 16.05.2016 for challenging the meter in question. Even he submitted self declaration. Through Ex.C-11 complainant claimed that earlier consumption of electricity remained in the range of 3700 to 4480 units during period from January, 2016 to March, 2016 and as such claimed amount of Rs.2,63,580/- is improper. Through Ex.C-11 rectification of bill amount in question was sought. It was after filing of application Ex.C-10 that complainant deposited meter challenge fee and the meter was sent to the Lab. Copy of the lab. report dated 12.09.2016 Ex.OP-2 produced to show as if display was defective. Reason for removal of meter mentioned as meter running very fast in Ex.OP-2 itself. So virtually challenge to meter in question was given by complainant on the ground that meter was running fast. In view of meter being dead and display defective, certainly it is made out that the meter was not working properly.

6.             Ex.OP-3, copy of register entry of PSPCL regarding meter in question further shows as if the reading of 45953 units of removed meter was on 16.05.2016. However, in Ex.OP-1 it is mentioned as if consumption in month of January, 2016 was of 653 units for 60 days, but it was of 813 units in March, 2016 for 63 days. In September, 2016 the consumption was of 900 units for 64 days, but in November, 2016 this consumption was of 741 units for 63 days. So certainly the range of consumption remained between 653 to 900 units. Electric connection in question admittedly is domestic connection and as such consumption of 34100 units in May, 2016 for period of 126 days is not at all possible, more so when this consumption of 825 units shown in month of July for period of 55 days in Ex.OP-1. As the meter was defective and was running at excessive/faster speed and that is why it recorded consumption of 42133 units in May, 2016 as reflected in Ex.OP-1. However, earlier reading for months of March and May 2016 remained static i.e. at 8033 units as reflected in Ex.OP-1. The contention of counsel for the OPs is that bill in question has been issued on average consumption basis, but that submission certainly has no force because even if average of consumed units during period from January 2016 to March, 2016 or September to November, 2016 taken into consideration, then consumption cannot be in excess of 800 units. However, for month of May 2016 consumption of 34100 units shown against entry date 13.05.2016 as reflected in Ex.OP-1 and it is on the basis of this entry that the impugned bill Ex.C-9 has been issued. So certainly bill Ex.C-9 reflects about the excessive charging of bill amount. This excessive charging is not based on any criteria and the same charging is against rules and regulations of PSPCL.

7.             After going through Regulation 21.5.2 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Reg.97 dated November 5, 2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazettee (Extra) dated November 5, 2014, it is made out that in case of dead stop/burnt/stolen meters, the account of a consumer to be overhauled/billed for the period, the meter remained defective/dead stop on the basis of average consumption of corresponding period of previous year, subject of course to maximum period of six months. No material produced on record to show as to what was the energy consumption during the corresponding period of March, 2015 to May, 2015 and as such virtually overhauling of the bill amount done without following the procedure laid down in Regulation 21.5.2 referred above.

8.             As the bill Ex.C-9 has been sent by mentioning previous arrear of Rs.2,19,939/- with additional amount of Rs.29,056/-, but without issuing any separate bill regarding arrear and as such violation of Regulation 30.1.2 of the above said Supply Code Regulations also have been committed by OPs. Regulation 30.1.2 of Supply Code provides that the bill cum notice for arrear in the case of under assessment or the charges levied as a result of checking etc. shall be initially tendered separately and shall not be clubbed with the current electricity bill. Further as per this Regulation 30.1.2, the arrear bill cum notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of arrears alongwith calculated details of such arrears. It is also mentioned in this Regulation 30.1.2 itself that in case arrear bill is included in the current energy bill at the first instance, then distribution licensee shall not be entitled to take any punitive action against the consumer for non payment of such arrear amount alongwith the current energy bill. As the arrear of previous year added in the current energy bill without issue of any separate bill cum notice for claiming arrear and as such certainly violation of Regulation 30.1.2 even committed by OPs in issue of bill Ex.C-9. Being so, OPs cannot take any punitive action for recovery of arrear bill amount of Ex.C-9. Virtually complainant was not disclosed particulars of details of claimable amount and nor he has been disclosed about the nature and period of the arrear while putting forth demand through Ex.C-9. So violation of principles of natural justice even was committed by OPs.

9.             As per law laid down in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and another Vs. Managing Director Imtiyaz, IV (2014) CPJ 25 (Hon’ble Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission), Consumer Fora  has full jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to excessive billing, in case demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principle of natural justice. In this case before us also demand has been put forth in violation of rules and regulations referred above without following principles of natural justice because due notice of nature of arrear or the details thereof not given to complainant and as such certainly demand in question of Rs.2,63,580/- liable to be quashed, but to see that complainant did not get undue benefit by quashing of this demand, it is ordered that OPs can recover electricity bill for period from 08.01.2016 to 13.05.2016 on the basis of average consummation in corresponding period from January to March, 2016, reflection of which is made in Ex.OP-1. OPs after preparing the bill on average basis will send the same to complainant within 40 days for enabling him to pay the due assessed amount. While preparing the said bill on average basis, OPs will disclose the date of payment. However, 20 days time must be given to complainant for making payment. Complainant stood mentally harassed and as such he is entitled for compensation for mental harassment and agony. Complainant deposited Rs.7,000/- through receipt Ex.C-7 after challenge of the meter and plea taken in that respect in the complaint is believable. Ex.C-2 shows that earlier bill amount of Rs.4,140/- was deposited on  21.05.2015 by complainant, whereas perusal of Ex.C-3 reveals as if he deposited Rs.5,930/-, bill amount on 07.10.2015. Perusal of Ex.C-4 also reveals that complainant deposited Rs.4,540/- on 16.11.2015, but Rs.4,480/- on 13.01.2016 through receipt Ex.C-5 dated 13.01.2016. From perusal of these receipts, it is made out that earlier bills of complainant remained in the range of Rs.3,700/- to Rs.5,930/-. So details given in Para No.4 of the complaint in this respect are correct. If the earlier bills remained in the range of Rs.3,700/- to Rs.5,930/-, then certainly it cannot be expected by any stretch of imagination that complainant will consume electricity of worth of Rs.2,63,580/- during the period of 60 to 70 days. So reasonable and believable inference drawable is that exorbitant bill amount in question claimed from complainant and as such genuine consumer dispute is raised by complainant. So demand of Rs.2,63,580/- put forth through bill Ex.C-9 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.

10.            As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint allowed in terms that demand of Rs. 2,63,580/- put forth through bill Ex.C-9 is quashed, but OPs given liberty to recover the electricity bill for period 08.01.2016 to 13.05.2016 on the basis of average consumption in the corresponding period from January to March, 2016. After preparing this bill on average basis, the same will be sent by OPs to complainant within 40 days from date of receipt of certified copy of order. Period within which the said bill amount on average basis payable by complainant will be disclosed in that bill, but with gap of 20 days of date of issue of bill and payment.  Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.3,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OPs. Liability of OPs held as joint and several. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation cost be made within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of order.

                Since there is shortage of postal stamps in this Forum, therefore, the parties through their counsel are directed to receive free certified copy of the order by hand and it will be the responsibility of the learned counsel for the parties to inform them accordingly.  This direction issued by following the principle laid down by Hon’ble  Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.956 of 2017 titled as Partap Rai Sharma Vs. Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), decided on 25.01.2018. File be indexed and consigned to record room. Order pronounced in open Forum in presence of counsel for parties. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

March 22, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                                   (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)                                                                 Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member