BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.126 of 2018

Date of Instt. 27.03.2018

Date of Decision:23.06.2022

Neeraj Kumar aged about 39 years son of Shri Rattan Lal, resident of House No.1030-A, Gali Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Rama Mandi, Behind Punjab National Bank, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2.       The Sub Division Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation     Limited, Birring Sub Division, Jalandhar Cantt.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. D. R. Seth, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj(President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant purchased the property in the year 2011 from Shri Balbir Singh Bhatti in whose name electricity connection J63ET410340K is installed in the said property. The complainant is the actual user and consumer of the said electricity connection. After purchase of the property, the complainant has been regularly paying the electricity bills. For the month of 26.09.2017, the complainant received electricity bill for Rs.50,430/-. The complainant was shocked to receive such an inflated and excessive bill. On receipt of the said bill, the complainant approached the OP No.2 with request to rectify the bill and to revise the same as per actual consumption. The complainant approached the OP No.2 as many as for 10 times but to no effect. After a long time, the OP No.2 informed the complainant that the concerned record was not traceable. On 11.11.2017, the complainant received another bill for Rs.57,080/- which too was excessive and inflated. This bill was issued after 45 days of the issuance of the earlier bill, in which, a sum of Rs.6650/- was included. On 13.11.2017, the complainant again moved an application for rectification of the bill but to no effect. When the complainant did not receive any positive response, the complainant moved application 11.12.2017 to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Jalandhar. On the said application, the OP No.2 revised the bill to the tune of Rs.55,510/- which too was excessive and exorbitant. The matter did not end here. The OPs again issued an excessive bill dated 15.01.2018 for Rs.61,890/- and threatened the complainant to pay the same, otherwise, the electricity connection shall be disconnected. The complainant is not liable to pay the excessive bill as claimed by the OPs nor the OPs have any right to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant on account of non-payment of the inflated bill. The electricity consumption and bill of the complainant always ranged between Rs.2 to 3 thousand per annum. The complainant never used the electricity energy to call for such a huge and inflated bill nor there was any special occasion or function in the family to warrant such an inflated bill. The OPs charged the bill as per highest slab of the consumption and further levied wrong and excessive interest on the amount, which infact, was not payable by the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests, reminders and approached the OPs till date have failed to rectify the bill and to issue the same as per actual consumption of the complainant in view of previous consumption trend of the complainant. The impugned bill is excessive, inflated and exorbitant and is liable to be revised as per actual consumption and the complainant is not liable to pay the same. The said bill is liable to be rectified and revised which the complainant is ready and willing to pay. All the efforts made by the complainant for rectification of the bill have proved abortive, the complainant has been left with no other alternative, but to file the present complaint. The act and conduct of the OPs is clear cut negligence and deficiency in service, which has caused great mental tension, agony and loss of money to the complainant and as such the present complaint filed with the prayer that the case of the complainant may kindly be accepted and OPs be directed to revise and rectify the impugned bill as per consumption trend of the complainant as per actual consumption and to waive illegal and unnecessary interest and charges levied on the account of the impugned bill and further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and further prayed that recovery of Rs.61,890/- and disconnection of the electricity connection of the complainant be stayed till final disposal of the present complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed its joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the charges levelled are on account of actual consumption charges as per rules, regulations and instructions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is further averred that the complainant does not have any locus-standi to file the present complaint as the old electric connection Account No.ET41034 ok and New No.300525166 stands in the name of one Sh. Balkishan as per record of the OP No.2. The complainant does not have any cause of action against the OPs. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. This commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint as the complainant should have approached the Dispute Settlement Committee and competent authority to get the dispute decided or settled. On merits, the factum with regard to changing the meter of the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that bill dated 11.11.2017 was issued, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove his case, the complainant alongwith his counsel tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.

5.                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

7.                The complainant has challenged the electricity bill alleging that the excessive bill is being sent by the OPs since 26.09.2017 till 15.01.2018. The allegations are that the consumption of the complainant of the electricity ranges between Rs.2 to 3 thousand per annum and the complainant never used the electricity energy to call for such a huge and inflated bill, therefore he has challenged the bills and request has been made to revise and rectify the bills as per consumption.

8.                The contention of the OPs is that there is no deficiency or negligence in the service on the part of the OPs. The electricity connection is not in the name of the complainant, therefore the present complaint is not maintainable. It has been alleged by the OPs that the meter was changed from mechanical meter to electronic meter as per the policy of the PSPCL and the bill has rightly been sent on the basis of the consumption of units by the complainant. Since, the old meter was not deposited with the OPs by the company, who installed the electronic meter, therefore the reading on 14.03.2016 was taken on the basis of the average as per the consumption of the complainant of the electricity. There is no unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and no wrong bill has been issued.

9.                In order to prove that the complainant is the owner of the house and has purchased the house, the complainant has proved sale deed Ex.C-1 and receipt challan Ex.C-2. These documents show that the complainant has purchased the property from Dalbir Singh, the owner of the house alonwith Neeraj Kumar, his brother. As per the submission of the complainant, the complainant is using the electricity since its purchase i.e. since 2011 and he is consumer of the electricity. Once the complainant is consumer, he has a right to file the complaint before the Consumer Commission to redress his grievances. So, the complaint is maintainable.

10.              The complainant has produced on record the bills Ex.C-3, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7. The OPs have also proved the bills Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6. As per Ex.OP-7 and Ex.OP-8, the report was registered with the Incharge Police Post, Pragpur regarding the missing of the meters stating therein that the L & T Company changed the old meter, but they have not deposited the old meter to the office of PSPCL and making request to register the FIR. From these documents and the written statement, it is clear that the meter was changed after 04.03.2016. As per written statement, the consumer’s bill was prepared on 14.03.2016 with the reading upto 51853 units and the consumer deposited the bill on 21.04.2016. This bill was of Rs.1138/- and total 190 units were consumed as per Ex.OP-2. This bill was for 61 days i.e. from 12.01.2016 to 14.03.2016. Thereafter, again the bill was issued, which is Ex.OP-3. This relates to period 12.01.2016 to 11.09.2017 for Rs.50,420/- as per Ex.OP-3. This bill has included the period i.e. 12.01.2016 to 14.03.2016 for which the amount of bill has already been paid by the complainant as per para No.3 of the written statement and last reading was 51853 units, but Ex.OP-3 has mentioned wrong days i.e. wrong period of bill for 62 days in Ex.OP-3. As per their own case, the bill was issued with the ‘F’ code i.e. on average basis. Ex.OP-4 was issued for 61 days i.e. from 11.09.2017 to 11.11.2017 and this shows that 721 units have been consumed by the consumer. Similarly as per Ex.OP-5, the bill relates to the period 11.11.2017 to 15.01.2018 for 65 days and 429 units have been consumed by the complainant. Ex.OP-6 is for 672 days i.e. from 14.03.2016 to 15.01.2018 for 7731 units. The bill for the period from 14.03.2016 has already been issued to the complainant, vide Ex.OP-3 and this bill is of Rs.58,510/-. The bill Ex.OP-2 shows the consumption of 190 units for 61 days and 429 units for 65 days and 461 days the consumption has been shown as 721 units, whereas how the period has been calculated and how the bill has been issued for the same period again and again is not clear. This clearly shows that the old meter has been lost and the reading has not been properly taken by the OPs nor the bills have rightly been issued. No detail and reasons have been given as to why the bills have been issued for the same period time and again. Therefore, the bills 14.03.2016 to 15.01.2018 are set-aside as the bills are not based on actual consumption and further, OPs are directed to revise and rectify the impugned bill as per consumption trend of the complainant and as per actual consumption following the procedure laid down in the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission and as such, the complaint of the complainant is party allowed and OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

23.06.2022         Member                          Member      President