BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 662 of 2014

Date of Institution: 17.12.2014

Date of Decision: 12.10.2015

Om Parkash son of Sh.Ram Parshad, proprietor of Sunny Auto Body Builder, tenant in shop No. 35, Truck Stand, Jahajgarh, G.T.Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Ghee Mandi, G.T.Road, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

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

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Davinderpal Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.  B.S.Sachdeva, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Om Parkash under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is consumer of the Opposite Party having electricity connection bearing account No.C15GM520025M with present meter No.980188 supplied by the Opposite Party in his shop and the complainant is running this shop to earn his livelihood. Complainant alleges that he received bill of 2/2014 with consumption of 301 units. Similarly, the complainant received bill for 4/2014 with 1991 units and next bill for 6/2014 with  3420 units and bill for 7/2014 with 380 units. All the bills have been paid by the complainant. In fact, in the month of April, 2014 the complainant made a request to the Opposite Party to check and change the meter installed at his premises and thereafter, one official of the Opposite Party namely Makhan Singh visited the shop of the complainant and demanded money in thousands of rupees for the change of the meter and under compulsion the complainant had paid Rs.800/- to said Makhan Singh on which he assured the complainant that he would bring receipt of Rs.520/- by deposit of money for the checking of the meter. Thereafter, without handing over the receipt of Rs.520/- he removed the old meter by saying that the meter would be sent to ME Lab for checking and the complainant would  be called in ME Lab. After few days, said official of the Opposite Parties   installed another meter, but the meter was neither sealed  not it was new and it also became  defective. On the request of the complainant that meter was also changed and new meter was installed having No. 910188. The complainant was astonished to receive bill dated 31.7.2014 in which sundry charges of Rs.75150/- were added for payment. However, to avoid discussion of the electricity connection under the compelling circumstances, the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- on 11.8.2014 under protest. The complainant again received another bill dated 29.9.201 in which an amount of Rs.68580/- on account of sundry charges have been added. Again the complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- on 30.9.2014. For the last 5-6 months, the complainant is going to the office of Opposite Party for quashing the illegal demand of Rs.75,150/- raised in the bill dated 31.7.2014 and to refund Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest from the date of its respective dates.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to  quash the illegal demand of Rs.75,150/- raised in the bill dated 31.7.2014. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was denied that on intimation of the complainant, the premises of the complainant was inspected vide inspection report No. 323 dated 28.12.2013 by the official of the Opposite Party. During inspection it was found that meter serial No.209389 of the complainant was burnt, so the electricity supply of the complainant was connected directly. It was also reported that as per the previous checking of the premises dated 29.10.2010, the load of the premises was found 3 KW, but it was not printed in the previous bills of the complainant. So, it was recommended to issue the bills to the complainant on average basis. The inspection report No. 323 of 28.12.2013 was prepared and signed by the said officials of the Opposite Party on the spot which was also signed by the representative of the complainant in token of its correctness and the copy of the same was also handed over to him on the spot. Then the meter No. 209389 of the complainant was changed on 28.1.014 vide MCO No. 118 dated 16.1.2014  by the official of the Opposite Party on the spot which was also signed by the complainant in token of its correctness and the copy of the same was also handed over to him on the spot and new meter no. 852088 was installed instead of the old meter at the reading at 02. During this period, the bills were issued to the consumer on average basis. Thereafter, due to ‘D’ code the meter No. 852088 of the complainant was again changed on 5.7.2014 vide MCO dated 3.7.2014 by the official of the Opposite Party on the spot which was also signed by the representative of the complainant in token of its correctness and the copy of the same was also handed over to him on the spot. Thereafter, new meter No. 980188 was installed instead of the old meter at the new reading. During that period the bills were issued to the consumer on average basis, but the consumer did not pay regular bills, so the connection of the consumer was temporarily disconnected on 10.12.2014 vide TDCO No. 131 dated 9.12.2014. But it is denied that Makhan Singh, official of the Opposite  party demanded thousands of rupees for the change of the meter or that the complainant had paid Rs.800/- to said Makhan Singh. These are the false allegations. The amount charged by the Opposite Party is actual consumption charges which were consumed by the complainant and the complainant is legally bound to pay the same. 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 affidavit of Sh.Jatinder Singh Ex.C15 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Davinder Kumar Sharma, SDO Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP14 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.C15GM520025M under NRS category. Complainant submitted that for the bill period 2/2014, the complainant received bill with ‘N’ code with  consumption of 301 units i.e. on average basis. Similarly, the complainant received bill for 4/2014 with ‘C’ code having consumption of  1991 units and next bill for 6/2014 with  ‘D’ code showing consumption of 3420 units. Thereafter, the complainant received next bill for 7/2014 with ‘C’ code showing consumption of 380 units. All the bills were paid by the complainant. However, the complainant received bill dated 31.7.2014 in which the Opposite Party claimed sundry charges of Rs.75,150/- without any detail. The complainant approached to the Opposite Party for detail, but the Opposite Party did not provide any detail and the complainant , in order to avoid disconnection of his electricity connection, deposited Rs.10,000/- on 11.8.2014. The complainant again  received bill dated 29.9.2014 Ex.C12 in which the Opposite Party charged Rs.69,580/- as sundry charges without giving any detail and the complainant had to deposit Rs.20,000/- under protest. The complainant submitted that Opposite Party has charged in excess on average basis for the bills dated 7.4.2014, 3.6.2014 and 31.7.2014 as per consumption data Ex.OP3 and Ex.OP4. Complainant approached to the Opposite Party to correct these bills dated 7.4.2014, 3.6.2014, 31.7.2014 and 29.9.2014 as per consumption, 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 qua the complainant.
7. Whereas case of Opposite Party is that on the intimation of the complainant, the premises of the complainant was inspected vide inspection report No. 323 dated 28.12.2013 Ex.OP2 by the official of the Opposite Party and it was found that meter serial No.209389 of the complainant was burnt and the electricity supply of the complainant was connected directly. The load of the premises was found 3 KW, but it was not printed in the previous bills of the complainant. So, it was recommended to issue the bills to the complainant on average basis. Then the meter No. 209389 of the complainant was changed on 28.1.014 vide MCO No. 118 dated 16.1.2014  and new meter was installed and during that period the bills were issued to the complainant on average basis. Thereafter, again the meter of the complainant became defective and it was given ‘D’ code and again the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO dated 3.7.2014 Ex.OP8  and it was also signed by the  representative of the  complainant in token of its correctness and during that period also, the bills were issued to the complainant on average basis, but the consumer/ complainant did not pay regular bills, so the connection of the consumer was temporarily disconnected on 10.12.2014 vide TDCO No. 131 dated 9.12.2014 Ex.OP9. However, the complainant has deposited Rs.30,000/- against the demand of Rs.75,150/- raised by the Opposite Party vide bill dated 31.7.2014.  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, particularly from the record i.e. consumption data of the complainant Ex.OP13 and Ex.OP14, it is clear that the meter of the complainant was burnt as it was given ‘N’ Code as the meter was not there on 7.2.2014, so the meter of the complainant was changed. The complainant was issued bill dated 7.4.2014 with ‘C’ code on average basis with consumption of 1991 units. Thereafter, bill dated 3.6.2014 was issued with ‘D’  as again the meter of the complainant was found defective and said bill was issued on average basis with consumption of 3420 units and then the bill dated 31.7.2014 was issued with ‘C’ code on average basis as the meter of the complainant was changed, showing consumption of 3480 units , but the complainant did not make the payment  so a demand of Rs.75,150/- was raised under the head ‘sundry charges’ as the complainant did not make the payment of these bills alongwith surcharge. The complainant only paid Rs.30,000/-, so the bill dated 29.9.2014 Ex.C12 was issued demanding Rs.69,580/- under the head ‘sundry charges’ as the complainant did not make payment of the previous bills. From the perusal of the consumption data of the complainant produced by the Opposite Party itself Ex.OP14, the complainant has consumed 128 units during the corresponding period whereas the Opposite Party has charged for the bill dated 7.4.2014 from the complainant on average basis for the consumption of 1991 units. Similarly, during the corresponding period of bill dated 30.5.2013 the complainant has consumed only 244 units with “O” code, but the Opposite Party has charged the complainant on average basis for 3429 units in bill dated 3.6.2014 from the complainant. Similarly, for the consumption period 8/2013 bill with “O” code, the complainant has shown consumption of 258 units only, whereas Opposite Party has charged in the bill dated 31.7.2014 from the complainant on average basis consumption of 3480 units. All these bills do not appear to be proper and not based on actual facts. The Opposite Party can charge from the consumer  on average basis for the consumption of corresponding period of the previous year and not more than that, but the Opposite Party has charged much excess than the actual consumption made by the complainant during the corresponding period of the previous year with ‘O’ code. So, the impugned demand raised by the Opposite Party in the bills dated 7.4.2014, 3.6.2014, 31.7.2014 and 29.9.2014 is not genuine. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party also could not rebut these points  raised by ld.counsel for the complainant on the basis of consumption data of the complainant Ex.OP14.
9. Resultantly, we hold  that the Opposite Party has not charged  from the complainant  for the defective period  i.e.bills dated 7.4.2014, 3.6.2014, 31.7.2014 and 29.9.2014 on the basis of actual consumption of the complainant during the corresponding period of previous year which was with ‘O’ code.
10. Consequently, the impugned demand raised by the Opposite Party from the complainant vide these bills i.e. bills dated 7.4.2014, 3.6.2014, 31.7.2014 and 29.9.2014 is  not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside and quashed. However, Opposite Party is directed to charge the complainant for the above mentioned period of defective meter on average basis i.e. on the basis of actual consumption made by the complainant during the corresponding period of previous year. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.    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: 12-10-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                               (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                     Member