BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.75 of 2015

Date of Institution: 29-01-2015

Date of Decision: 24-06-2015  

Karnail Singh son of Vir Singh, resident of 957-B, Dr.Het Ram Colony, Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its SDO (Commercial) West, Sub Division Chheharta, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. D.P. Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.Anil Kumar, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Karnail Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is a consumer of electricity bearing Account No.A26KH310889K and making the payments of bills regularly as and when received. Complainant alleges that meter of the complainant is fixed in pillar box alongwith other meters, which is far away from the residence of the complainant.  In the month of July 2014 the officials of the Opposite Party removed the meter of the complainant without any application of the complainant and without informing the complainant and fixed a new meter after  few days without getting it checked from the complainant. On both the occasions, the complainant was not called nor any report was made nor any information was given. The meter removed was not packed in the box under seals in presence of the complainant nor the complainant was called in ME Lab for checking of the old meter. Now the complainant has received a bill dated 17.1.2015 for Rs.8840/- for the period 17.11.2014 to 17.01.2015 showing consumption of 1257 units. Said bill is exorbitant and illegal because the average bill of the complainant  for two months remains between Rs.2000/- to Rs.3000/- before the change of the meter. So, the impugned bill dated 17.1.2015 for Rs.8840/- is  illegal, unlawful and incorrect and is liable to be quashed.  The complainant submitted his representation to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party is not listening to the request of the complainant and rather threatening to make the payment otherwise connection will be disconnected. The non co-operative attitude of the officials of the Opposite Party has caused great mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to quash the impugned bill dated 17.1.2015 for Rs.8840/- and Opposite Party be directed to issue the correct bill for payment and further the Opposite Party be restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant on account of non payment of the disputed bill.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that on the report of the meter reader of ‘D’ code the electricity meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.6/21256 dated 17.10.2014 which was effected on 27.10.2014. After that the old meter of the complainant was removed and new meter was installed. After that a bill dated 17.1.2015 for the period of 17.11.2014 to 17.1.2015 for 1257 units for Rs.8840/- was issued to the complainant according to actual consumption of the electricity meter of the complainant. The complainant moved an application to the Opposite Party that he wanted to challenge his electricity meter and his request was allowed and he was allowed to deposit the meter challenge fee, but the complainant did not deposit the meter challenge fee. The complainant was issued a memo dated 28.1.2015 vide registered post to deposit the challenge fee, but the complainant refused to receive the said memo.           While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Pawan Kumar, AEE Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
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 the parties, it is clear that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide Account No.A26KH310889K. Complainant alleges that he has been making the payments of all the electricity bills to the Opposite Party   regularly  without any default. However, the complainant received a bill dated 17.1.2015 of Rs.8840/- (Ex.C4) for the period from 17.11.2014 to 17.1.2015 showing the consumption of 1257 units. The complainant approached the Opposite Party through application Ex.C2 and told that his bi-monthly consumption of electricity ranges between   Rs.2000/- to Rs.3000/-. As such, this bill is exorbitant. He requested the Opposite Party to rectify the bill, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the electricity meter of the complainant became defective and it was given ‘D’ code by meter reader of the Opposite Party and said meter was changed vide MCO No.6/21256 dated 17.10.2014 which was effected on 27.10.2014 (Ex.OP3). After that the  impugned bill dated 17.1.2015 Ex.C4 for the period from 17.11.2014 to 17.1.2015 for 1257 units was issued according to the actual consumption of the electricity meter of the complainant as is evident from the consumption data of the complainant Ex.OP2 and the complainant was duly informed in this regard vide letter dated 2.2.2015 Ex.OP5 and letter dated 28.1.2015 Ex.OP6. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the complainant never challenged the functioning of this new electricity meter nor deposited any meter challenge fee. As such, the bill Ex.C4 is quite genuine as per the actual consumption of electricity by the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the  old meter of the complainant became defective and the same was changed vide  MCO No.6/21256 dated 17.10.2014 (Ex.OP3) which was effected on 27.10.2014. Thereafter, the  impugned bill dated 17.1.2015 Ex.C4 for the period from 17.11.2014 to 17.1.2015 for 1257 units was issued according to the actual consumption of the electricity meter of the complainant  as the reading of this meter on 17.11.2014 was  245 units and on 17.1.2015 was 1502 units. As such, this bill Ex.C4 is based on the actual consumption of the electricity as per the meter of the complainant during this period as is evident from the consumption data of the complainant Ex.OP2. The complainant never challenged the functioning of this meter nor deposited any meter challenge fee with the Opposite Party. He has simply stated that the impugned bill is excessive whereas this bill is based on the actual consumption of the electricity by the complainant. If the complainant was not satisfied with the functioning of this meter, he could challenge the functioning of the meter by depositing meter challenge fee, but at present, the complainant was not able to  point out any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.      
9. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
10. Resultantly , we hold that  the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 24-06-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member