ORDER

(S.P.GARG, MEMBER)

1.                The present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Anil Dhwan s/o Late Sh.Hans Raj Dhawan, resident of House No.98, Nasib Enclave, Near Azad Gas Service, Chander Nagar, Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala and others (hereinafter to be referred as ‘OPs’)-directing them to pay a sum of Rs.53,720/- after deducting the actual consumption as received by the OPs illegally from the complainant on account of illegal demands and further OPs are directed to pay Rs.2.0 lacs to the complainant for committing negligence and deficiency in service and for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is consumer of electricity connection bearing no.W52DF760084Y falls under the Haibowal U-II, Sub Division, PSPCL District Ludhiana. The above mentioned electricity connection was installed in the property of complainant at above said address and he has been paying the consumption charges regularly without any default. On receipt of Average bill dated 16.8.11 sent by the OP3 to the complainant qua his above said domestic electricity connection and being aggrieved with the illegal demand of Rs.12,550/- and the complainant visited the office of OP3 and enquired about the said illegal demand and the officers of the OPs came to the property where the meter is installed and the said meter was then checked from the ME Lab and they told that the meter is perfect. The complainant has paid the bill, but in the next bills the OPs again generated the average bills of huge amount of Rs.9980/- on 22.10.11, then Rs.10,730/- on 22.08.12, then Rs.14,310/- on 30.10.12 and then Rs.6150/- on 26.12.12 etc. The complainant many a times requested the OPs to return the said huge amount received by you on account of average bills as the complainant has not consumed that much electricity, but the OPs have been dilly dallying the matter on one pretext of the other. The complainant submitted many applications and reminders to the OPs, but no action was taken on the said application. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the meter of the complainant was checked as the meter was installed at the outside of the house near the gate in MCB. The pulse of the meter was checked by putting load on the same, when the load was put on the same the pulse was not functional. The display of the meter is also out of order. The meter was found to defective meter and as such the average bill was being charged from the complainant. The amount has rightly been charged from the complainant after overhauling the account of the defective meter of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. On merits, admitted to the extent that the electricity connection has been installed in the property of complainant and admitted that the average bill dated 16.8.11 was sent by the OP3 to the complainant qua the said domestic connection and denied the contents of the remaining paras. Further admitted that complainant made the payments of the bills. The demand of the answering OPs is legal and genuine. However, it is admitted that the officers of the Ops came to the property where the meter is installed and the said meter was then checked from the ME Lab and denied the rest of the para being wrong. Denying all other allegations of the complaint, OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  

3.                Ld. Counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and further pleaded that normal average of his consumption is around Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/- and there has never been any default on the part of the complainant in deposit the regular bills during the past and also submitted the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OPs has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Baljit Singh, Senior Executive Engineer, Aggar Nagar Division (Special), Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Ludhiana Ex.RA, wherein the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and affidavit of Sh.Sikander Singh, Meter Inspector, Aggar Nagar Division (Special), Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Ludhiana Ex.RB, wherein he deposed that on 26.09.12 he being a meter inspector checked the meter of the complainant as the meter was installed outside of the house near the gate in MCB. The pulse of the meter was checked by putting load on the same, when the load was put on the same, the pulse was not working and the meter reading was not shown by the meter. The display of the meter is also out or order. The meter was changed and it was checked from the ME Lab. The said checking report is Ex.RB/2, which is true and correct as per the site checking and the same be read as part of this affidavit. He identifies his signatures on the report Ex.RB and also submitted the documents Ex.RA1 and Ex.RB/2.

4.                Complainant argued orally that he is consuming electric connection bearing no.W52DF760084Y in premises. But illegal demand of Rs.12,550/-, Rs.9980/-,Rs.10,730/-, Rs.14,310/-, Rs.6150/-, which is illegal and not based on any tenable data. Ops have not placed on record as to what were the basis for sending these average bills, if the meter was defective and Ops never bothered to give proper reply to any of his applications dated March 6, 2014, October 25, 2012, October 12, 2012, August 6, 2013, September 24, 2012 and simply replied that meter was defective and reading was not displayed on the meter, but the OPs never bothered to replace the meter with new one rather went on sending average based bill without any base.

5.                On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OPs argued orally that average bill dated 16.8.11 was sent by the OP3 to the complainant qua his domestic electricity connection. The electric meter of the complainant was checked and the same was found defective and as such the meter was changed later on the bill was sent to the consumer on the basis of instruction no.21.4 (G) an load demand factor of 12 kw sanctioned lo. The amount charged from the complainant is legal and genuine. Further submitted that the officers of the OPs came to the property where the meter is installed and the said meter was got checked from the ME Lab. The meter was found defective and the amount has rightly been charged by OPs from the complainant. Thereafter the OPs generated the average bills of huge amount of Rs.9980/- on 22.10.11, then Rs.10,730/- on 22.8.12, then Rs.14,310/- on 30.10.12 and then Rs.6150/- on 26.12.12 etc. Further submitted that the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.53,720/- against his consumption as the meter was found defective and as such average bill was charged from the complainant.

6.                We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant as well as defence taken by the Ops and also perused the entire record placed on file.

7.                It is evident that the meter so installed at the premises of the complainant was defective, but the Ops did not bother to replace the same inspite of repeated requests from the complainant about the inflated bills even new meter replaced by the OPs did not work either.

8.                From the perusal of the bills dated 22.10.11 for Rs.9980/- and dated 16.08.11 for Rs.12,550/- does not find any mention of the period for which, the bills were issued similarly bill dated 30.10.12 for Rs.14,310/- and bill dated 22.08.12 for Rs.10,730/- and bill dated 26.12.12 for Rs.6150/- have been issued on average basis without making proper calculation of the previous year/period consumption charges and for which period and basis the average has been worked out. These must have been some basis or data to calculate the average charges, which is not there.

9.                In view of the above discussion, the case of the complainant is partly allowed, as the defective meter was not changed promptly and OPs are also directed to overhaul all the bills for the period in dispute from 16.8.2011 to 26.12.2012 by taking the average of consumption charges for the previous years i.e. from 16.08.10 to 15.08.11 and to adjust the payments made by the complainant for the period under dispute i.e. from 16.08.11 to 26.12.12. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses, compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

                   (S.P.Garg)                                         (R.L.Ahuja)

                     Member                                             President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:05.01.2015 

Hardeep Singh