BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.458 of  2020

      Date of Instt. 21.12.2020

      Date of Decision: 10.01.2024

Paramjit Kaur Rana age about 74 years w/o Satnam Singh Rana (D/O Late Sh. Makhan Singh Roy) R/O Vill. Pragpur, PO. Dhanowali, Tehsil & Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab, through her attorney Mr. Vinod Ekka S/O Sh. Joseph Ekka R/O Vill. Pragpur, Tehsil & Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala,     through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.       The Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power   Corporation Limited, Sub Divisional Office, Commercial Unit   No.3, Barring, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. K. S. Minhas, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. S.K.S. Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide electric connection No.3000468474 installed in her residence situated at Paragpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar having sanctioned load of 9.42KW. The said meter is in the name of her father namely Makhan Singh Roy, who had unfortunately expired on 12/03/2018. This property, on which the meter was installed was inherited by the complainant (who is an old aged lady i.e. age about 74 year) along with her other legal heirs, who had later on transferred the same property to the complainant. The complainant, who is a daughter of deceased Makhan Singh is residing and due to her non-availability in India, had appointed Shri Vinod Ekka S/o Sh. Joseph Ekka R/O Vill. Pragpur, Tehsil & Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab as her legal and duly constituted attorney vide General Power of attorney on 03/02/2020. Even otherwise the said attorney is fully conversant with the facts of the case. The OPs are engaged in providing electricity services and are supplying, managing, transmitting the power to the complainant under the Account bearing No.3000468474. Surprisingly the complainant had received a Bill No.20082090419132101 on dated 09/04/2019 for the meter having Account No.3000468474. The said bill was for the period having its old reading from 08/12/2018 to new reading dated 09/04/2019. The total amount payable by the due date, which was dated 24/04/2019 was amounting to Rs.5,30,210/-. Old meter reading 29955 KWH and new meter reading is 90281 KWH and the consumption of the same has been shown is 60526 KWH for the period 08/12/2018 to 09/04/2019 (i.e. 122 days). As the complainant is permanent resident of U.K. and visiting her ancestral house on and of, as such the attorney of the complainant had challenged the electricity meter with the office of the OPs No.1 and 2 on 09/05/2019, as the complainant had never on earlier occasion had received the electricity bill of such a huge amount for her residential house. The OP vide its memo No.13 dated 07/01/2020 has informed that meter was checked in ME-LAB of the OP and Accuracy, Dial Test and Meter was found all correct (O.K.) and thus the demand of Rs.7,03146/- was raised by the OP No.2 and to deposit the same with the OP. Even otherwise the bill dated 09/04/2019 and the demand was raised vide Memo No.13 dated 07/01/2020 by the OP No.1 and 2 is totally void-abinitio and totally non- speaking, which has been issued to the complainant with regard to un-justifiable amount of bill are liable to be set-aside on the following grounds:-

a) Because the previous bills of the property in question i.e. residential house would reveal the fact that the amount of consumption of electricity on average, always vary from Rs.1100/- to Rs.2340/-, but in any stage not more than Rs.3,000/-. The details of the bills sent by the OP No. 2 to the complainant for the period 13.10.2017 to 23.02.2019, which have duly been paid by the complainant. Perusal of the said bills so attached with this present complaint would reveal the fact that there was no such occasion in the previous term or years that bill of huge amount has been ever been levied/raised to the complainant, which shows the fact that there is inordinate jump in the reading of the Meter of the account of defect of Meter. The said defect is apparent on record, wherein, the perusal of bill 09/04/2019 shows herein that the old meter reading starts from 29755 KWH and new Meter reading ends on 90281 KWH, having consumption 60526 KWH. The said meter reading was having period of 122 days starting from 08/12/2018 to 09/04/2019 and the total amount was payable i.e. on 24/04/2019 comes to Rs.5,30,210/- If we read/see the said bill in comparing with the Bill so raised for the period from 13/10/2017 to 23/02/2019, the same is not accordance with the regularly supply, regular reading/regular working of the meter in question., which clearly proves herein that there is inordinate jump in the reading of meter, as there is a defect in the same. Thus the deficiency on the part of the OP is a apparent on the face of it and the demand so raised by the bill dated 09/04/2019 and by the letter dated 07/01/2020 is un-justifiable and liable to rejected at thresh-hold.

b) Because the perusal of Bill No.20082090219142128 dated 09/02/2019 is for the period of 08/12/2018 to 09/02/2019, wherein the total consumption of 132 units has been shown and the total amount payable to the tune of Rs. 1570/- was issued. The sail bill was paid by the complainant on 23/02/2019. However, the opposite party have again issued a bill having No.20082090419132101 dated 09/04/2019 including the same period, which has already been stood paid on 23/02/2019 vide receipt Ex.-C-14 (i.e. period starting from 08/12/2018 to 09/02/2019) and again issued the bill of Rs.5,30,210/- vide Ex.-C-5. Thus the deficiency and the error on the part of the OP are apparent on the face of it and show their monopoly/arbitrariness and harassment occurred to the complainant on the part of OP. The fault is entirely lies in the hands of OP, for which they are to be held responsible for the unfair trade/mala-fide practice.

c. Because the consumption pattern of these electricity connection for over one years has been consistent and if there has been any inordinate jump in the reading of the meter the same is on account of the defect in the meter and to this effect the discrepancy was brought into the notice of opposite party No.1 and 09-05-2019 itself.

d) Because even otherwise no consent whatsoever has been taken from the complainant to remove, to inspect the electricity meter and as such any report whatsoever created by the OPs No.1 and 2 is unilateral and self serving.

e) Because further as a matter of fact itself there is inordinate and unexplained delay on part of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 in removing the meter and in eventually sending the demand letter which itself shrouds the entire act of OPs No.1 and 2 into suspicion.

f) That further the contents of the disputed memo clearly reveal that no inspection whatsoever has been done by the OPs No.1 and 2 and no notice/intimation after the removal of the meter and before the issuing the demand notice whatsoever has been sent to the complaint.

g.       That further the demand memo itself shows that the OPs No.1 and 2 test the meter in the span of seven months and adamant that the electric meter is accurate, whereas, it is prima-facie evident that there is a major lacks on the part of the OPs No.1 and 2, which causes huge loss to the present complainant in the shape of legal demand so raised by the Ex.-C -5 and Ex.-C -6, which is otherwise not legal and maintainable in the eyes of law.

h) Because no such notice has been issued to the complainant while inspecting/checking the meter in ME-LAB. Neither the meter was checked/inspected in the presence of the present complainant nor any such prior notice was served to the complainant at the time of testing the meter and thus natural justice has been violated and recovery whatsoever vide Memo No.13 dated 07/01/2020 has been created at the back of the complainant. The necessary procedure is required for the testing of meter has not been followed in the present case. As such, the report of the M.E. Lab does not hold any correctness and demand of Rs.7,03146/- is unjustifiable and liable to be rejected at thresh hold.

i) Because the impugned notice itself does not in any way reflect the basis on which demand of amount of Rs.7,03146/- has been made and the said latter is nonest. The OPs No.1 and 2 have unilaterally calculated the said amount.

j) Because the complaint is directly aggrieved by the conspiracy and secretive act of the OPs and the opposite parties are hand-in-glove with alleged technical laboratory are directly affected by such conduct and also by the impugned demand memo, which is being challenged before this Court, as such the complaint have locus standi to file the present complaint.

k) Because complainant through her attorney requested the OPs No. 1 and 2 to withdraw the illegal demand notice to clarify the matter, however the OPs are adamant and have refused to accede to the genuine request of the complainant, as such the complaint has no other immediate and efficacious remedy except to file the present complaint.

l.) Because the cause of action has arisen in favour of the complaint when the OPs started raising illegal action by disconnecting the electric meter and without providing of opportunity of being heard to the present complainant without persistent requests in verbal as well and insisted upon the alleged report of laboratory and tried to justify his claim of Rs.7,03146/- which is otherwise not maintainable in the eye of law.

m) Because the balance of convenience lies in favor of the complainant and against the OPs.

n) Because the demand raised by OPs is totally wrong, incorrect, illegal and unlawful, against the circulars and instructions of Power com and is not payable by the complainant.

o) Because the connection of the complainant had also been disconnected without providing opportunity of being heard and deprived from the legal right and the complainant is being suffering from her legal right due to the uncalled for behavior of the OPs.

                   The cause of action has accrued to complainant when the complainant first took the services from OPs. Thereafter, when complainant has approached the OPs for her grievances and lastly, on last week when complainant had again approached the OPs for her grievances and also when OP had failed to act upon the repeated requests of complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and directions may kindly be issued to the OPs from restraining charging the amount of bill i.e. Rs.7,03146/- from the complainant against the electric connection No.3000468474 for the reason mentioned above and the OP be further directed to install the meter at the residence of the complainant with immediate effect so that the complainant be not deprived from the basic necessity i.e. right to electricity. It is further prayed the bill No.20082090419132101 dated 09/04/2019 and memo No.13 dated 07/01/2020 are null and void and non acceptable and be set aside for the reason mentioned above and further the OPs may also be directed to pay an amount of Rs.1 Lac to the complainant on account of harassment and mental agony occurred at the hands of the OPs and further OP may also be directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form, as the same is based upon wrong, facts, as the false and frivolous complainant materially concealing material facts and has is guilty of and suppressing approached this Commission with unclean hands with the sole intention of deceiving this Commission. The complaint moved by the complainant is not maintainable against the answering OPs. It is further averred that the complaint in reply is not maintainable in law, however, the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant with an intention to mislead this Commission. It is further averred that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file present complaint as the electricity connection bearing No.3000468474 under domestic category is in the name of one Makhan Singh Roy and not in the name of the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant has failed to disclose all the facts before this Commission which if disclosed would have indicated that there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant against the answering OPs. It is further averred that the complainant has no true grievance or valid cause of action qua the answering OPs. It is further averred that the complaint is baseless and is flagrant abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail the answering OPs. It is further averred that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is consumer of electricity connection No.300468474 and the said connection is in the name of Makhan Singh Roay and it is also admitted that the bill dated 09.04.2019 was sent to Makhan Singh, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file  as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant very minutely.

6.                It is admitted that the electricity connection No.3000468474 installed at Paragpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, is in the name of Makhan Singh, who has, since died on 12.03.2018. The complainant has proved the death certificate Ex.C-1. After the death of Makhan Singh, the property was inherited by the complainant, vide Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. The complainant has alleged that she is the NRI and not residing in the premises. She has proved the bill Ex.C-5 received by her on 24.04.2019, which was from 08.12.2018 to 09.04.2019 for Rs.5,30,210/-. This fact has been admitted by the OP also in their written statement. It is also admitted that the complainant challenged the electricity meter with the office of the OP No.1 with the result the meter of the complainant was changed and as per the report of ME Lab, the meter was found OK. The demand of Rs.7,03,146/- was raised by the OP No.2 vide Ex.C-6. The meter was disconnected on 03.03.2020.

7.                Perusal of Ex.C-4 shows that the complainant is NRI and she is British Citizen. Ex.C-5 shows the old reading 29755 KWH and new reading 90281 KWH and consumption has been shown as 60226 units for 122 days. The bill shows the amount of Rs.5,30,210/-. The period of the bill is 08.12.2018 to 09.04.2019. As per Ex.C-1, Makhan Singh Roy, in whose name the meter was working, died on 12.03.2018 in Kingston Hospital, Kingston. This means that at the time of death, he was not in India. This shows that nobody was residing in the house during this period. Even for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that any family was residing in the house, even then it cannot be presumed that for 122 days, anyone can consume 60526 units, even if, the lights of entire house remain on. The meter was challenged vide Ex.C-6. The report was found OK. The old bills have been produced on record by the complainant for the period 15.12.2017 to 11.02.2018, 09.06.2018 to 10.08.2018 and from 08.12.2018 to 09.02.2019. These are Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-12 and these bills are for Rs.1190/-, Rs.1590/-, Rs.1890/-, Rs.2340/- and Rs.1570/- respectively. From these bills, it can very well be concluded that much of electricity as mentioned in impugned bill, was never consumed by the complainant or any of her family members, even after the death of Makhan Singh.

8.                Though, the OP has produced on record one consent letter showing that some Raju was there when the meter was removed from the premises of the complainant, but this fact has been denied by the complainant that Raju is their employee or any representative. After seeing the signatures of alleged Raju, it can very well be concluded that he cannot get the consent letter typed nor can write the name of owner. More so, this document is proved to be created afterwards as in the contents of the letter, the name of Makhan Singh has been written in whose presence, they allegedly removed the meter, but it was never signed by any Makhan Singh rather it was signed by some Raju.

9.                The OPs have relied upon the report of ME Lab, which was allegedly OK and they have also relied upon the documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6, from where it is not clear that the complainant has ever given consent for the checking of the meter in her absence in the ME Lab. There is mere report of accuracy allegedly given by the ME Lab. No procedure has been followed by the OPs as per their regulations for removing and checking the meter in ME Lab. It has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab State Commission, in FA No.1558 of 2011, decided on 19.03.2015, 2015 (2) CLT 222, titled as ‘Jagat Pal Vs. PSPCL Ltd. & Others’, that 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) Electricity - Exorbitant bills Complaint alleging deficiency in service - Failure on part of OP in their duties by not providing any guidance to complainant nor they told him to deposit the meter checking fees for getting the meter tested in the ME Lab - OP was under obligation to get the matter investigated at their own level and take appropriate action to check the working of the meter or to justify the excessive consumption recorded by it on account of some other occasions like marriage function of the complainant - In view of the instructions of the OPs, the exception in variations in consumption is to be verified after entering the same in the variation register, which was not done by the OPs.' So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

10.              In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the bill No.20082090419032101 dated 09.04.2019  and Memo No.13 dared 07.01.2020 are hereby set-aside. Extra payment made by the complainant to the OP by way of arrears of the above said period and charged in subsequent bills already paid by the complainant as per order of the Commission dated 05.01.2021 be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in future bill. Further, OPs are directed to issue bill as per actual consumption in future. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

10.01.2024         Member                          Member           President