DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 65 of 03-03-2008<br /> Decided on :14-05-2008 <br /> <br /> Rashpal Singh S/o S. Chand Singh R/o Village Pathrala, , Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board through its Executive Engineer, PSEB, Badal, District Mukatsar.<br /> 2.S.D.O, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Dabwali.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties <br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. Lakhbir singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.P.S. Brar, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Domestic electric connection for connected load of 2 KW was applied for by the complainant on 13.11.2003 by way of depositing Rs. 2,250/- vide receipt No. 548 Book No. D-51068. Connection was released on 31.12.04. At the time of installation of electric meter, it was showing consumption of about 8800 units. When protest was raised by him (complainant) he was assured that meter would be changed or rectified. When electricity consumption bill was not received after a lapse of 2-1/2 months after installation of the meter, matter was brought to the notice of opposite party No. 2 vide application dated 15.3.05 for setting right the meter and for sending the consumption bill. Even thereafter applications dated 1.8.05, 12.6.06 and 20.3.07 were moved to opposite party No. 2 in this regard. Bill dated 9.12.07 was received by him in which consumption was 9882 units as on 14.11.07 (although meter was showing reading around 10700) i.e. from 1 to 9883 for a sum of Rs. 44,430/- i.e. Rs. 40,363/- as S.O.P. Rs. 4,036/- as Electricity duty and Rs. 26/- as meter and service rentals payable by cheque upto 24.12.07. As per bill earlier reading was taken on 25.8.07 and lastly it was taken on 14.11.07. Opposite parties with malafide intention did not refund the amount of consumption of 8800 units which meter was showing at the time of its installation. Opposite party No. 2 was requested to correct the bill, but to no effect. Another electricity bill dated 8.2.08 has been sent showing consumption of 904 units from 14.11.07 to 12.1.08 and old reading as 9883 and new reading as 10787 although meter was showing consumption of 10700 at the time of taking reading on 14.11.07. Total amount of the bill dated 8.2.08 is Rs. 52,140/- payable upto 22.2.08. Since he has liability to pay the electricity charges after 8800 units, he has not paid the amount of this bill. His house is situated in a small area in the village. His bi-monthly consumption of electricity remains about 100 units. From 31.12.04 till February, 2008 his consumption would not be more than 199 units. He has shown readiness and willingness to pay the consumption charges of 1900 units subject to the condition that separate bills for 19 bi-monthlies are prepared and the amount is received in installments. Officials of the opposite parties while installing the connection on 31.12.04 had obtained his signatures. They might have subsequently prepared documents with malafide intention. In these circumstances, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to quash/set aside the demand of Rs. 52,140/- raised through bill dated 8.2.08; prepare separate bills for 100 units of each bi-monthly i.e. bills for the actual consumption of electricity from 31.12.04; allow him to deposit the amount in installments; pay him Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, loss of physical health and Rs. 4,000/- as cost of the litigation.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and it has been filed with malafide intention just to evade the payment of electricity consumption. On merits, they admit that complainant had applied for electricity connection. Formalities were completed by him. Connection was released. Meter No. 1466031 was installed. After the complainant was satisfied about its correctness and reading as 00001 at the time of installation he had put his signatures in english on the Service Connection Order. Connection Order was effected on 15.8.04. They deny that when meter was installed, it was showing consumption of 8800 Units. Inter-alia their plea is that meter file which was bearing the bio-data of giving connection inadvertently remained un-conveyed for a long time i.e. upto October, 2007. Accordingly, concerned meter reader could not be communicated concerning installation of new connection upto October, 2007. When record was communicated to him in October, 2007 and reading was taken first time in November, 2007, it was 9883. First bill was sent against the consumption of 9882 units. Second reading was taken in January, 2008 and it was 10787 units. Complainant did not approach them with the request as to why the reading was 9882 units from 15.8.04 to November, 2007. Bill dated 8.2.08 is of 904 units. Complainant had sought some information under Right to Information Act. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-2), photocopies of letters dated 15.3.05, 1.8.05, 12.6.05 and 20.3.07 (Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-6) respectively, photocopies of bills (Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8), photocopy of installation Order (Ex. C-9) and photocopies of list of items (Ex C-10 & Ex. C-11).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, S.D.O. (Ex. R-1), photocopy of Service Connection Order (Ex. R-2), photocopy of Ledger page No. 66 (Ex. R-3) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant.<br /> 6. Admittedly, complainant had applied for domestic electricity connection which was released by the opposite parties. Plea of the complainant is that connection was released to him on 31.12.04 and meter No. 7466031 was installed. To the contrary, opposite parties are alleging that meter No. 1466031 was installed on 15.8.04. No document has been placed on record by the complainant to show that meter was installed on 31.12.04. His affidavit Ex. C-1 and his application copies of which are Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6 on this aspect of the matter are belied by the documents Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2. Complainant himself is relying upon the Service Connection Order copy of which is Ex. C-9. A perusal of it reveals that Order was issued on 13.11.03 and was effected on 15.8.04. This document bears signatures of the complainant. Hence complainant cannot wriggle out of the situation and say that connection was released to him on 31.12.04 and not on 15.8.04. Reliance of the complainant on copies of the list of items shown in the register at pages No. 71 & 72 copies of which are Ex. C-11 & Ex. C-10 respectively does not advance his cause. They pertain to measurement(paimaish) dated 2.10.04. This document cannot override the Service Connection Order effected on 15.8.04 which bears his signature.<br /> 7. No doubt in the Service Connection Order number of the installed meter has been recorded as 1466031 but in the impugned bills dated 9.12.07 and 8.2.08 copies of which are Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8 meter number has been given as 7466031. It appears that due to inadvertence or some mistake, meter number has been wrongly recorded either in the original of Ex. C-7 or Ex. C-8 or in the Service Connection Order. For the consideration of the date of release of connection, this fact cannot fetch significance. Conclusion which is arrived at is that connection was released on 15.8.04 instead of 31.12.04.<br /> 8. Complainant is assailing two bills dated 9.12.07 and 8.2.08 copies of which are Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8 respectively. In the bill dated 9.12.07 demand raised is of Rs. 44,430/- payable by due date. Reading has been taken on 14.11.07. Old consumption has been shown as 1 and new 9883. Demand is for 9882 units. For the bill dated 8.2.08, reading was taken in the month of January, 2008. Old reading is 9883 and new 10787. Amount payable by due date is 52,140/-. Complainant is alleging that at the time of installation of the meter, it was showing consumption of 8800 unit. For this, there is bald affidavit Ex. C-1 which stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Gurdeep Singh, S.D.O. There is no documentary evidence to establish that at the time of installation of meter it was showing consumption of 8800 units. On the other hand, Service Connection Order effected on 15.8.04 reveals that meter was showing consumption of only one unit. This document bears the signatures of the complainant. If the meter was showing more consumption than one unit, complainant should have refused to sign the Service Connection Order. He is stopped from raising the plea that meter was showing consumption of 8800 units at the time of its installation. Complainant is relying upon the copies of his applications Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-6. They have been shown to be dated 15.3.05, 1.8.05, 12.6.06 and 20.3.07 respectively. Opposite parties are denying the receipt of these applications. Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-6 do not show the receipt of them by any official of the opposite parties. It being so, complainant cannot drive any benefit from them. It is not the case of the complainant that installed meter is running fast or is defective. Had the meter been defective, he could deposit the challenge fee for challenging it and getting it checked from the M.E. Laboratory which has not been done by him. No doubt due to some inadvertence, the meter file which was bearing bio-data of the connection of the complainant remained un-conveyed upto October, 2007 and the concerned meter reader could not be informed regarding the installation of the connection upto October, 2007. When the matter was brought to his notice, reading was taken by him for the first time in November, 2007 when it was 9883. Accordingly, first bill was sent for 9882 units as meter was installed when it had reading of one unit. 2nd reading was taken in January, 2008 when reading was 10787 units. Accordingly, bill for the amount payable by the complainant by due date was issued for Rs. 52,140/-. Since bill could not be sent by the opposite parties due to inadvertence consumption continued accumulated from 15.8.04 onwards. It is not the version of the complainant that from 15.8.04 onwards he did not use the electricity. Complainant cannot be given benefit of deduction of 8800 units when it does not stand establish that at the time of installation of the meter its reading was 8800 units. Complainant has not made any payment regarding consumption of the electricity. Mere fact that more units have been shown in the impugned bill Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8 and accordingly demand raised for consumption is on the higher side is no ground to hold that bills are excessive and arbitrary specially when complainant continued using the electricity for years together i.e. from 15.8.04 onwards. Plea of the complainant that his bi-monthly average bills remained under 100 and from 31.12.04 till February, 2008 it would not be more than 1900 units is unfounded and baseless. Similarly his prayer for preparing separate bills for 19 bi-monthlies is not acceptable and understandable. Bills are for actual consumption of electricity although for longer period. Hence they are not arbitrary and illegal. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Demand raised through bill dated 8.2.08 is not liable to be quashed/set aside.<br /> 9. In the result, complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 14-05-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />