THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 62 of 2015
Date of Institution : 27.01.2015
Date of Decision : 16.07.2015
Davinder Singh son of Amrik Singh resident of Raja Sansi Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd through SDO Harsha Chhina Sub Division, Amritsar
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Amitpal Singh,Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. Anil Sharma,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Davinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is consumer of electric connection bearing account No. JH520824W under DS category. According to the
-2-
complainant he has been making payments of the bills regularly without any default. In the month of May, 2014 complainant received a bill dated 1.5.2014 for Rs. 1,12,420/- which the complainant challenged before this Forum and this Forum restrained the opposite party not to disconnect the electricity connection subject to deposit of 50% of the disputed amount, which the complainant deposited with the opposite party. On 9.2.2014 complainant again received a bill for Rs. 75460/- and the complainant deposited Rs. 27903/- with the opposite party but no detail was given to the complainant regarding the said bill. Complainant again received a bill dated 17.11.2014 for Rs. 78380/- in which opposite party has charged Rs. 25244/- but no detail has been given to the complainant regarding the said amount. Complainant visited the office of the opposite party to know the details but they did not accede to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to set-aside the bill dated 17.11.2014. Compensation of Rs. 10000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that in the month of March 2014 average bill for F code of 511 units was issued to the complainant. But when the audit party of the opposite party noted that the actual consumption in the month of 3/2014 was 3877 units, so the opposite party overhauled the account of the complainant and the amount of Rs. 25244/- was
-3-
added in the electricity bill of the complainant dated 17.11.2014 as per rules and regulations of the opposite party and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-2, copies of bills Ex.C-3 to C-6.
4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Sukhdev Singh, SDO Ex.OP1, copy of half margin Ex.OP2.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant is the consumer of electricity vide account No. K46 JH520824W under DS category. The complainant submitted that he has been making payment of all the bills issued by the opposite party regarding electricity consumption, regularly without any default. However, he received bill dated 17.11.2014 for Rs. 78380/- in which the opposite party has charged Rs. 25244/- as arrears but no details has been given by the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party to rectify the bill or to provide the details, but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the
-4-
request of the complainant. The complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that in the month of March 2014 bill on average basis with F code of 511 units was issued to the complainant. However, the audit party of the department noted that the actual consumption in the month of March 2014 was 3872 units. So the audit party of the opposite party overhauled the account of the complainant vide half margin Ex.OP2 and amount of Rs. 25240/- was added in the electricity bill of the complainant dated 17.11.2014 as per rules and regulations of the PSPC Ltd. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant is the consumer of electricity vide account No.JH520824W under DS category. The meter of the complainant in the month of March 2014 was given 'F' code . Resultantly bill on average basis with F code of 511 units was issued to the complainant. However, it was noticed by the audit wing of the opposite party that the actual consumption in the month of March 2014 was 3877 units as the meter was functioning properly , so the audit wing of the opposite party overhauled the account of the complainant vide half margin Ex.OP2 and it was found that a sum of Rs. 25240/- is payable by the complainant . Resultantly this amount was added in
-5-
the current consumption bill of the complainant dated 17.11.2014 Ex.C-4. Opposite party before charging this amount directly in the current consumption bill of the complainant dated 17.11.2014 Ex.C-4, did not give any prior notice alongwith copy of the half margin to the complainant to deposit this amount or to file objections, if any. As such the complainant was not given any opportunity of being heard before adding this amount in the current consumption bill of the complainant Ex.C-4 . As per rule 124.1 of the Sales Regulations and Supply Code, opposite party cannot claim any other amount except the current consumption charges in the current consumption bill of the consumer except after following proper procedure i.e. opposite party is bound to give prior notice to the consumer, supplying him the copy of the half margin and requiring the consumer to deposit the amount in question within a stipulated period or to file objections, if any . But in the present case, the opposite party did not issue any prior notice before adding this amount directly in the current consumption bill of the complainant Ex.C-4, which is against the rules and regulations of the opposite party. As such the complainant has not been given proper opportunity of being heard. So it stands fully proved on record that the opposite party has not followed this procedure before adding this amount of Rs. 25244/- in the current consumption bill of the complainant Ex.C-4.
9. Resultantly this demand of Rs. 25244/- raised by the opposite party in the current consumption bill of the complainant Ex.C-4 is hereby set-aside. However,
-6-
opposite party is at liberty to charge this amount from the complainant after following proper procedure as laid down under rules 124.1 of the Sales Regulations and Supply Code . Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
10. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
16.07.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member