Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that complainant is owner of H.No.8594/10, Kot Mangal Singh, Ward No.24, Ludhiana and in the said property domestic electric connection bearing A/c No.3002372983, meter no.W21JF410994X is lying installed which is in the name of complainant. The said connection is domestic one and whatever the electricity has been consumed by the complainant, he used to pay the electricity bills regularly. The average bill of the said meter is Rs.2000/- to Rs.2500/-. In the month of April, 2015 the opposite parties sent a bill dated 24.04.2015 by raising a demand of Rs.8268/- and on receiving the said bill, the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to rectify the impugned bill as he never used the electricity to such an extent, but the opposite parties did not agree to rectify the impugned demand and threatened that in case the complainant did not deposit the said amount, then they will disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant and ultimately on 29.09.2015 the opposite parties illegally and unlawfully disconnected the electricity supply of the complainant and removed the electricity meter. At the time of removing the said meter, the opposite parties never packed the said meter nor sealed in the presence of the complainant nor any signature was ever obtained by them from the complainant. The matter did not end here, the opposite parties in order to recover the alleged amount continuously sent the bill by raising the huge demand and in the month of February 2017, the opposite parties raised a demand of Rs.62,055/- from the complainant and also made it clear that in case the complainant will not pay the said amount, then they will get recover the same by hook or crook or will involve the complainant in false and frivolous cases. Thereafter the complainant time and again approached the opposite parties with a request to rectify the bill and to withdraw the impugned demand and to restore his electricity connection as without having the said amenities, it is impossible for the complainant and his family to remain in the house, but nothing has been done by the opposite parties except giving false excuses and rather threatened to disconnect the electricity supply of the meter in question in case the complainant did not deposit the impugned demand. The demand raised by the opposite parties in the above said bill is totally illegal, unlawful and against the principal of natural justice, null, void and is liable to be ignored. The complainant is not liable to pay the said amount to the opposite parties. The complainant has suffered a great mental tension and agony on account of illegal acts of the opposite parties. There is great deficiency in service on the party of the opposite parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite parties may be directed to withdraw their illegal demand vide bill dated 23.01.2017 for Rs.62060/- and to rectify the previous disputed bills of the meter in question of the complainant as referred above and the opposite parties may be directed to restore the electricity supply of the complainant.
b) Further the Opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, pain and agony suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
c) To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
d) And any other additional or alternative relief to which the complainant found entitled to may also be awarded, in the interest of justice.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable and merits dismissal. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In this case, the entire amount relates to the regular consumption charges whatsoever consumed by the consumer. In the month of April, 2015 the opposite parties issued the bill to the consumer by raising a demand of Rs.8828/- including surcharge, but the consumer failed to deposit the said bill and again the opposite parties served the bill the tune of Rs.33,410/-, but the consumer again failed to deposit the said bill with the opposite parties. But due to inadvertently the opposite parties failed to disconnect the electricity connection of the consumer and thereafter the consumer continuously consuming the electricity and till 23.01.2017 the demand of Rs.62,060/- was made out against the consumer, but the consumer never bothered to pay the same despite demand made by the opposite parties. When this fact came to the notice of the opposite parties, then the opposite parties issued disconnection order vide PDCO dated 17.03.2017 and the same was affected on the same date and at the time of disconnection of the electricity connection a sum of Rs.64,350/- was due towards the consumer. Since the consumer failed to pay the regular consumption charges of the electricity consumed by him as such the opposite parties have rightly disconnected the electric connection of the consumer. The complaint filed by the complainant is time barred as the complainant himself has alleged in the complaint that the electric connection was disconnected on 29.09.2015, whereas the complaint has been filed by the complainant after a period of more than 2 years, which is not maintainable in the eyes of law. On merits, it is submitted that as per the record of the opposite parties, the electric connection bearing account no.JF 41/0994 was laying installed in the name of Janak Raj, but the consumer is habitual for not making the payment of the consumption charges for the electricity consumed by him. Further submitted that in the month of April 2015, the opposite parties rightly served the bill to the tune of Rs.8828/- including surcharges, but the consumer failed to pay the same for the reasons best known to him. After that in the month of September 2015 the opposite parties also issued a bill to the tune of Rs.34,410/- including arrears of Rs.8828/-, but the consumer again failed to deposit the same with the opposite parties. On 23.1.2017 the opposite parties again issued the bill for the amount of Rs.62,060/- including the arrears of previous financial years as well as current financial year, but when the consumer again failed to deposit the said bill with the opposite parties then ultimately the opposite parties disconnected the electric connection on 17.03.2017. At the time of disconnection of the electric meter of the consumer a sum of Rs.64,350/- was due to be paid to the opposite parties by the consumer. The said demand of Rs.64,350/- is relating to the regular consumption charges of the electricity consumed by the consumer. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.
5. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Surjit Singh Ex.RA alongwith copies of documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Party have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statement and we have perused the rival contentions of the parties. It is not the denial of the parties that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties with regard to domestic electric connection bearing no.U12NB200249F and the complainant was paying the electricity bills as per consumption. The case of the complainant is that residential accommodation from the house where the above said electric connection is installed w.e.f January, 2017 was shifted to newly constructed house, as such the above said electric connection is not in use since January, 2017. However, the complainant received bill of Rs.8350/- for the month of September-October, 2017 and complainant made protest against the illegal demand of Rs.8350/- and approached to opposite parties, the opposite parties alleged that firstly amount of Rs.8517/- be deposited and then the grievances of the complainant will be heard and accordingly the amount of Rs.8517/- was deposited under protest on 7.10.2017 vide receipt no.113017632. The opposite parties made assurance to the complainant that the account will be re-checked and the amount shall be charged as per the consumption. Till September, 2017 there was consumption of unit was 1164 and old consumption was 33150 and new consumption was shown as 33202. As such unit consumption was 52 whereas in the bill the consumption was shown as 1164 unit. The complainant made a complaint on 10.10.2017 which was entered as diary no.469 with opposite parties. Further the meter in question is installed outside the house of the complainant which is always locked and the keys of the lock of the meter always remained with the employees of the opposite parties. Bill for the month of October and November again send on 21.11.2017 in which old unit consumption was shown as 33202 and new unit consumption was shown as 33377 as such there was unit consumption for the month of October and November was 175, whereas consumption of 586 unit is shown in the bill. When the complainant received the bill for the amount of Rs.4080/- then the complainant personally met to opposite party no.3 and he alleged that on the bill the meter is shown as dead and he sent the employees and change the old meter on 22.11.2017. After changing the new meter with old meter the employees of the opposite parties made endorsement on the receipt bearing no.46305 the consumption of units which has been shown as 33403. As the meter is not used since January, 2017 so the complainant has not consumed the electricity for such period. Even otherwise the demand of Rs.8350/- which was deposited as Rs.8517/- and the demand of Rs.4080/- is illegal on the face of it, as the consumption for the month of September even as per the bill is 52 units whereas bill is sent for consumption of 1164 units. Similarly consumption for the month of November, 2017 is 175 units where as the bill is sent for the unit of 586 units. Even otherwise as the meter is not used since January, 2017 the consumption should be nil as such the demand of the opposite parties of the above said amount is illegal, void, arbitrary against the provisions of law as well as against the natural justice and the demand of the opposite parties is liable to be set aside. The complainant met several times to the officials of the opposite parties and also requested them to verity the facts and requested the opposite parties several times to withdraw the illegal demand and also requested to return the amount of Rs.8517/- deposited under the protest, but to not effect and thereafter opposite parties flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant.
8. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the Complainant on the ground that the opposite parties issued the bill in the month of September 2017 of 1164 units on average basis due to D-code to the complainant. Similarly again the opposite parties in the month of November 2017 issued bill of 586 units on average basis due to D-code to the complainant and again in the month of January 2018 the opposite parties issued the bill to complainant of 434 units on average basis due to D-code and C-code. Meaning thereby the electric meter of the complainant was defective in the month of September 2017 to January 2018 as such the opposite parties rightly demanded the amount for the said period on average basis as per the sanctioned load of the complainant. Since the demand in dispute is legal and genuine as such the complaint is liable to pay the same.
9. From the perusal of the record it is proved that meter of the complainant remained dead stop/ defective from 19.07.2017 to 22.11.2017. Hence the account of the complainant for the period 19.07.2017 to 22.11.2017 was to be overhauled on the basis of the consumption for the corresponding period of previous year i.e. 2016. Perusal of the record shows that the opposite parties issued the bill in the month of September 2017 of 1164 units on average basis due to D-code to the complainant. Similarly again the opposite parties in the month of November 2017 issued bill of 586 units on average basis due to D-code to the complainant and again in the month of January 2018 the opposite parties issued the bill to complainant of 434 units on average basis due to D-code and C-code. Meaning thereby the electric meter of the complainant was defective in the month of September 2017 to January 2018 as such the opposite parties rightly demanded the amount for the said period on average basis as per the sanctioned load of the complainant. In view of this, we are of the view that the Opposite Parties have rightly issued the bills to the complainant by taking the average as per the regulation of the PSPCL.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same stands dismissed. All pending applications are disposed off accordingly. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
