Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/99

Iqbal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Guman, Adv.

11 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 99 of 14.02.2017

   Date of Decision       :   11.01.2019 

 

Iqbal Singh aged about 60 years son of Sh.Harbhajan Singh, r/o H.No.4423, St. No.2, Narinder Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, CMC (SPL) Division, District Ludhiana through its Executive Engineer/Sub Divisional Engineer.

3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana through S.D.O.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :         Sh.M.S.Ghumman, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh.A.S.Walia, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT 

1.                          Complainant holds domestic electric connection bearing account No.E12BN020110 of 1 KW in the name of his deceased father Sh.Harbhajan Singh. Complainant is residing in the premises situate at Narinder Nagar, Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana, in which, above said electric connection is lying installed. Ops have been issuing the bills for this connection as per consumption and complainant had been paying the electricity charges regularly. Earlier in the month of September 2013, some fault occurred in the electricity meter and thereafter, on request of complainant, said electric meter was replaced with new electric meter. Thereafter, complainant started making payment of bills. Inflated bills subsequently received by the complainant, due to which, he approached Ops number of times. Officials of Ops assured the complainant that meter will be checked, but no one came to the premises of complainant for that purpose. Finding no other alternative, complainant approached this Forum through complaint. That complaint was decided against Ops by way of quashing the demand of Rs.38,577/-. Ops were directed to charge consumption of the electricity on the basis of average consumption basis by keeping in view the consumption as per corresponding months of previous years. After passing of those orders, Ops changed the electricity meter on 22.5.2016, but the same problem reoccurred and that is why complainant again approached Ops on 14.9.2016 for challenging the meter. At that time, Ops assured that they will check the meter and change the same. However, nothing has been done. Complainant was astonished to receive another huge bill of Rs.31,450/- dated 19.10.2016. On 25.10.2016, complainant approached Ops, who referred the complainant to subordinate officials, but those officials assured to sort out the matter, but to no effect. Complainant received another bill dated 20.12.2016 regarding demand of Rs.34,570/-. Complainant approached Ops for knowing about the raised illegal demand, but no satisfactory reply was received and that is why this complaint. Complainant claims himself to be a handicapped person, who is harassed by Ops by way of rendering deficient services. This complaint filed for directing Ops to withdraw the illegal demand. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.20,000/- more claimed.

2.                In joint reply filed by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not maintainable; complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and that he has no cause of action. Admittedly, electric connection in question is in the name of Harbhajan Singh, but the complainant has not applied for transfer of ownership in his name after death of Harbhajan Singh. Complainant on 14.9.2016 challenged the working of meter No.8439748 and that is why MCO on 19.9.2016 was issued for removing challenged meter. This meter was got checked in ME Lab, but after obtaining consent letter from the complainant. On checking, the officials in ME Lab found the meter  OK and working within limit. Recorded consumption    of challenged meter of units was fully recoverable from 9.1.2016 to 11.8.2016 for 214 days. Old reading was 2205 and new reading on 11.8.2016 was 4144. So, consumption of 1939 units was duly recorded in the premises of complainant, due to which, sum of Rs.12,620/- was found recoverable. However, on 11.8.2016, old reading was 4144 units and thereafter, meter was changed on 14.9.2016.             The removed meter was giving reading of 6199 units. New meter at reading of zero unit was installed and same gave reading of 443 units on 19.10.2016. So, consumption of 2055+443= 2498 units was noted, for which, a sum of Rs.18,833/- was found recoverable on account of actual consumption charges. Total of the amounts of Rs.12,620+Rs.18,633/- comes to Rs.31,453/-  and taking the same                          in round figure as Rs.31,450/-, demand was raised through bill dated 19.10.2016. Next bill dated 20.12.2016 was issued in the name of Harbhajan Singh. Demand of Rs.34,570/- put forth along with previous arrears and current bill in regular and genuine bill. Admittedly, bills had been regularly issued in the name of Harbhajan Singh. Payment of the bills is a matter of record. Admittedly, complainant challenged the working of meter on 14.9.2016. Complaint alleged to be false and baseless and as such, prayer made for dismissal of same.

3.               Complaint along with counsel tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, Counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.Sukhbir Singh, Senior Executive Engineer of OP2 along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and then closed the evidence.

5.                          Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                Perusal of orders Ex.C7 dated 21.07.2015 passed in Consumer Complaint No.131 of 03.03.2015 in case titled as Iqbal Singh vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others by this Forum reveals that demand of Rs.38,577/- of electricity consumption charges raised in month of January 2015 was quashed. Even if that demand may have been quashed, but dispute in this case pertains to the demand of electricity consumption charges for period from 09.01.2016 onwards. So, decision given through orders Ex.C7 has no bearing on the merits of this case because dispute in this complaint pertains to the period of electricity consumption charges subsequent to the period, which was the subject matter of earlier complaint.

7.                 Ex.C1 is the copy of Aadhar Card of complainant, but Ex.C2 is copy of certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana showing that complainant is handicapped. Even if that be the position,  despite that complainant is bound to   pay the electricity charges for the consumption of electricity in his premises. Copy of electricity bill for period from 11.8.2016 to 19.10.2016 produced on record as Ex.C3 shows as if amount of Rs.31,450/- claimed from complainant, but that of bill Ex.C4 shows as if amount of Rs.34,570/- for period w.e.f.19.10.2016 to 20.12.2016 claimed from him. So, challenge to consumption in this case is for period from January 2016 onwards. Copies of forms Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 produced for showing that challenge of meter was contemplated by the complainant on 14.9.2016 through Ex.C5, but reading verification was sought through Ex.C6 on 25.10.2016. It is also the case of Ops that complainant challenged the electricity meter on 14.9.2016 by filing an application Ex.R1 and that is why said meter was sent to ME Lab after getting consent of complainant through Ex.R2.In Ex.R2, it is mentioned that consumption for period from 9.1.2016 to 11.8.2016 was of 1939 units by keeping in view old and new reading of 2205 and 4144 units respectively. That consumption of 1939 units was for 214 days. Subsequently for period from 11.8.2016 to 19.10.2016, consumption of 2498 units was found because old meter reading was of 4144 units and at the time of removal of same, it was giving reading of 6199 units. As MCO was done during this period and on installment of new electric meter with zero reading, further reading for 69 days was found as 443 units.     In this way, charges of electricity consumption for period from 9.1.2016 to 11.8.2016 assessed as Rs.12,620/-, but for period from 11.08.2016 to 19.10.2016, it was assessed at Rs.18,833/-. So, demand of Rs.31,450/- in all found genuine through Ex.R2. Ex.R3 is the same thing as is Ex.C6. Checking report dated 25.10.2016 is produced as Ex.R3=C7. Job order dated 19.9.2016 Ex.R4 is produced on         record to show that earlier electricity meter was sent to ME Lab. In consent form Ex.R5, it is mentioned that reading of removed meter is 06199 units and same facts incorporated in Ex.R2 referred above. This reading was recorded on 23.09.2016, when the meter was removed. ME lab results were obtained through report Ex.R6 regarding challenge to the meter given on 19.9.2016. In this report Ex.R6, it was found that meter was in OK condition. So, certainly submission advanced by counsel for Ops has force that whatever amount is due, demand in respect of the same is to be raised for period w.e.f.9.1.2016 to 11.8.2016 and same done subsequently also by issuing the bill Ex.C4 for period from 19.10.2016 to 20.12.2016. Being so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Ops bound to charge consumption charges on actual basis and same has been done in this case. So, allegations of unfair trade practice adopted by Ops are just allegations.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

 (Jyotsna Thatai)                                               (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                     President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:11.01.2019

Gurpreet Sharma.