Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/610

Surinder Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab state Power Corpn.Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh

21 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                 Complaint No: 610 of 02.09.2014

                                                                     Date of Decision: 21.01.2015

                                                                                                                   

Surinder Pal Sachdeva c/o Sh.Ramesh Gupta, r/o House no.81-E, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

……Complainant

Versus 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, (Comm.) Punjab State Power Corp. Limited, Model Town Division (Spl.) Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                             Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

 

Present:       Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Advocate complainant.

                   Sh.A.S.Walia, Advocate for Ops.

                   

                        ORDER

 

(SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

 

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Surinder Pal Sachdeva c/o Sh.Ramesh Gupta, r/o House no.81-E, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to issue the correct consumption bill for the period 1.11.12 to 31.5.13 and not raise any demand of log period w.e.f. 10.08.11 to 1.11.12 i.e. 15 months approximately, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the litigation expenses to the complainant and damages on account of mental harassment to the complainant alongwith any additional or alternative relief.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant has purchased property bearing no.81-E, at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Ludhiana on 12.08.11. the said property was purchased from Smt.Sudha Girdhar w/o Sh.Vikram Vir Girdhar. The property was purchased in the name of Sachdeva Building Contractor Pvt. Ltd., through Surinder Pal Sachdeva s/o Sh.Brij Pal Singh Sachdeva (Director of the company). The said property was locked from 12.8.11 to 1.11.12. The property was given on rent w.e.f 1.11.12 to Sh.Harpreet Singh s/o Sh.Satnam Singh. From 12.8.11 to 27.9.12, the electricity bills were issued for some reading because the house was locked and the meter is installed inside the gate of the house. The reading of the meter was 35531 units and for the said consumption has already been paid. The bill for the period 27.09.12 to 30.11.12 shows the reading as under:-

            i) Reading as on 27.09.12   35531 Units

            ii) Reading as on 30.11.2012         35573 Units

          Thus, the units consumed by the complainant during the period 27.09.12 to 30.11.12 were 42 units and the complainant deposited the electricity consumption charges within time. This shows that the meter was working OK during this period. The meter status as per the Ops was ‘OK’. The Ops issued bill dated 25.1.13 and the meter status in the bills was shown code ‘D’. Thereafter, the Ops changed the electric meter of the complainant aged 10/15 days and the meter was sent to ME Lab where it was found OK. The Ops issued half margin bill no.162 dated 4.12.13 for Rs.1,23,696/-. The demand of the Ops was illegal and the same was challenged before the Circle Legal Dispute Settlement Committee constituted by PSPCL. The complainant was directed to pay Rs.22,490/- on 26.3.14, vide receipt no.414 dated 26.3.14. As per decision of the DSC dated 8.5.14 the Ops have deducted an amount of Rs.43,822/- approximately from the illegal demand of Rs.1,12,451/- without surcharge and directed the consumer to deposit the amount of Rs.58,121/- upto 4.9.14. This demand of the Ops is illegal, null and void and the same is liable to be corrected. The Ops were requested to make correction in the electric consumption charges bill, but they have failed to accede to the genuine request of the complainant. 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 complainant has already been decided by the Circle Level Dispute Settlement Committee and he was required to approach Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee by filing a Revision against the order of Circle Level Dispute Settlement Committee; the complainant is not recorded consumer of connection account no.PH-07/2746; the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has tried to misled this Forum. Further stated that MCO dated 4.5.13 was issued changing the meter of electric connection bearing account no.PH-07/2746, which was granted to Ramesh Gupta under DS category having sanctioned load of 15 kw and reason for issuing MCO was mentioned dead stop and thus on the basis of said MCO meter was changed on 6.5.13 by Ops and new meter was installed. However D-code was sent to computer in 1/2013 due to same reading, but as per reading record meter was showing same reading since 1/2012 meaning thereby same was dead since 1/2012 and this fact is also cleared from the record/consumption data of above connection. Internal Audit party, Model Town, Ludhiana, vide half margin 162 dated 4.12.2013 overhauled the account of said connection for the period 1/2012 to 5/2013 by applying LDHF Formula as average base cannot be taken due to the reason that before 1/2012 consumption was Nil so, on load basis average consumption base was taken 2156 units bi monthly so, after revising the account and adjusting the amount already recovered sum of Rs.1,12,451/- was found recoverable from the consumer of said connection. Ops issued supplementary bill dated 12.3.14 payable by 28.3.14 of Rs.1,12,451/- in the name of Ramesh Gupta recorded consumer, but after receiving the bill complainant on 26.3.14 filed application addressed to Deputy Chief Ludhiana claiming that he has purchased the property on 12.8.11 where said connection is lying installed and bill for Rs.1,12,451/- should be correct which is on higher side and matter be referred to Circle Level Dispute Settlement Committee, so request of complainant was accepted and he was directed to deposit 20% amount out of total disputed amount and he deposited the same and matter was referred to Circle Level Dispute Settlement Committee and meanwhile AEE Technical, Model Town Division Special, Unit no.1 on 8.5.14 checked the site and made site report page no.64/615 and in the site report he mentioned reading at site 9809 of new meter on 8.5.14 and also mentioned in the report that house was occupied by tenant Harpreet Singh. After considering all the facts the Circle Level Dispute Settlement Committee decided as follows:

            “That after the change of meter on 6.5.13 consumption of 9809 units was duly recorded on 8.5.14 and after calculating it become 1635 units per bi monthly therefore, the account of consumer should be overhauled by taking average 1635 units per bi monthly instead of 2156 units taken earlier and revised calculation should be prepared and consumer should be informed accordingly.”

 

                        So, as per decision of Circle Level Dispute Settlement Committee where submissions of consumer were duly considered and demand was again revised and sum of Rs.58,121/- was found recoverable from recorded consumer after all adjustments and supplementary bill dated 25.8.14 was issued before payable on or before 4.9.14 and after due date sum of Rs.62,206/- was recoverable but complainant instead of depositing the above amount has filed this complaint malafidely, which is liable to be dismissed being without any merits. On merits, denying the contents of all other paras, Ops prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                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 attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for Ops has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Parbharkar, Additional S.E. Model Town Division Special, PSPC Ltd., Ludhiana Ex.RW1/A, wherein, he requested that detailed reply of Ops may kindly be read as part of evidence in shape of this affidavit and attached documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10.

5.                Case was fixed for arguments. Ld. Counsel for complainant argued orally that the house of the complainant, where the said meter remained installed was locked from 12.08.11 to 1.11.12 and the property was given on rent w.e.f. 1.11.12 to Sh.Harpreet Singh s/o Sh.Satnam Singh and rent deed was executed on 5.11.12. Further argued that from 12.8.11 to 27.09.12 the electric bills were issued for same reading, because the house was locked and meter stood at 35531 units for which, the payment had already been made. But for the period 27.09.12 to 30.11.12 the reading were as under:-

          i) Reading as on 27.09.12                 35531 units

          ii) Reading as on 30.11.12       35573 units

          Meaning thereby that 42 units were consumed by the complainant during the period 27.09.12 to 30.11.12 and meter was working correctly, but the bill dated 25.01.13 where the code-D was marked and the Ops changed the electric meter by a new one and old one was sent to ME lab, where it was found to be OK. But the Ops issued half margin bill no.162 dated 4.12.13 for Rs.1,23,696/-. But Circle Level Dispute Settlement Committee of the Ops revised the same and the complainant was directed to pay Rs.22,490/- and this committee deducted the amount of Rs.43,822/- from the payment of Rs.1,12,451/- out of which Rs.22,490/- was also paid  by Sh.Ramesh Gupta, the previous owner on dated 26.3.14 yet the Ops have been demanding Rs.58,121/- outstanding dues, which are illegal.

6.                Refuting the allegations made by the complainant, Ld. Counsel for Ops argued that the matter was thoroughly examined by the Circle Level Disputes Settlement Committee, whereby all the pleadings of the complainant were duly considered. The committee decided that “after the change of meter on 6.5.13, consumption of 9809 units was recorded on 8.5.14, which means 1635 units per bimonthly, therefore, account of the consumer should be overhauled by taking average of 1635 units per bi monthly instead of 2156 units taking earlier. Revised calculations should be prepared and the consumer should be informed accordingly.” However, the complainant has failed to prove in any manner that the said premises remained locked for the period of one year and there was no consumption of power during that period. It was incumbent on the part of the complainant to raise the issue before the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee against the decision of Circle Level Dispute Settlement Committee by filing Revision instead of adopting that procedure the complainant has filed the present complaint.

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

8.                It is evident that Circle Level Dispute Settlement Committee reduced the average consumption from 2156 to 1635 units and deducted the amount of Rs.43,822/- from the total outstanding bill of Rs.1,24,433/- and the complainant further paid Rs.22,490/- leaving the balance of Rs.58,121/- which was duly outstanding towards the connection installed at the said premises. The complainant has not been able to prove that the house remained locked for the said period and if the premises was actually locked even then the sum minimum charges are still levied, which the complainant has failed to prove that he paid any amount for the period under which the house remained locked. Since the complainant is relying and accepting one hand the verdict of Circle Level Disputes Settlement Committee of the OPs and availing the relief of Rs.43,822/- and on the other hand refusing to accept the remaining settlement qua the balance amount. On this very ground the complainant was required to file Revision before the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee of the Ops, which he did not avail. However, the complainant deposited Rs.22,490/- as 20% of the total dues in this way complainant has not been able to substantiate his charges nor he has been able to prove any payment made for the period 12.8.11 to 1.11.12.

9.                Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merits with no order as to cost. Copy of the order be supplied 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:21.01.2015 

Hardeep Singh