BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.388 of 2016

Date of Instt. 07.09.2016

Date of Decision:25.04.2018

Balram Kumar Sharma s/o Late Sh. Chanan Ram, 117, Tower Enclave, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office, The Mall, Patiala, through its CMD.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Badshahpur, Jalandhar City, through its SDO/AEE.

..….…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Arvind Sharda, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant has domestic electricity connection obtained from the OP under account bearing No.J71WF24140F. The complainant had been paying regularly energy consumption bills to the OPs and nothing is due to be paid out of the regular energy consumption bill to the OP. In the last week of June 2016, the OPs issued regular energy consumption bill dated 23.06.2016, amounting to Rs.48,390/- for the charging period 03.03.2016 to 23.06.2016, to the complainant. After going through the details, the complainant was shocked to come across that the units of electricity, as shown to be consumed by the complainant, was to the tune of 6424. By no stretch of imagination, such a huge consumption of electricity can be made by the complainant and his family members with a sanctioned load of 8.8 kw. In the said bill, the old meter reading was shown to be 7233 units, whereas the new reading was shown to be 13657 units, thereby showing consumption of 6424 units of electricity during the charging period of 03.03.2016 to 23.06.2016.

2. That the complainant immediately approached OP No.2 and apprised him about the fact that the said electricity bill raised by them was inflated one and the complainant never used the electricity so profusely so that such a huge bill could be raised. The OP took the said bill in his hand and himself told the complainant that there was some anomaly in the meter reading because the status of the meter was being shown as 'N' in it. The OP No.2 issued directions to the concerned official to take fresh reading of the meter installed at the residential premises of the complainant. On 01.07.2016, the complainant was issued a fresh energy consumption bill for the period 03.03.2016 to 01.07.2016. Moreover, the old meter reading was shown to be 7233 units, whereas the new reading was shown to be 7657 units, thereby consumption of 424 units of electricity was shown for the charging period. On receiving the revised bill, on 06.07.2016, the complainant made the payment of Rs.2200/- on the basis of new bill dated 01.07.2016. After some days another official from the OPs visited the house of the complainant and told that the meter of the complainant was working fast than the normal speed and he advised the complainant to write to the OP No.2 to install check meter at his residence. On the said advice, the complainant made three representations to the OP No.2 in this regard, but of no avail.

3. On 25.08.2016, the OPs raised the latest energy consumption bill for the charging period 23.06.2016 to 25.08.2016 for the consumption of 7209 units of electricity amounting to Rs.55,390/-. The complainant again approached the OPs against raising of such a huge consumption bill. To this, the OP No.2 stated that he could not do anything about that and threatened the complainant to deposit the impugned charges, otherwise the supply of electricity to the residential premises would be disconnected. It is pertinent to mention here that even the date of reading taken on 23.06.2016, as shown in the impugned bill is shown as 7657,whereas the same is shown as 7233 in the bills dated 01.07.2016 as well as in the bill dated 23.06.2016. Moreover, the reading taken on 23.06.2016, do not match as shown in the impugned bill and other two bills dated 23.06.2016 and 01.07.2016. The impugned bill dated 25.08.2016, amounting to Rs.55,390/- has not been issued on the basis of correct consumption of units of electricity and is illegal, null and void and is liable to be quashed. Due to sending the aforesaid bill, caused mental harassment to the complainant, which give rise to cause of action to file the present complaint and accordingly, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed the quash the regular energy consumption bill dated 25.08.2016, amounting to Rs.55,390/- and charge the complainant on the basis of correct consumption of electricity and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.22,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-, to the complainant.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared through their counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed material facts from the Forum and actual fact is that the complainant is taking the benefit of the legal process and misleading the Forum with an intention to avoid the payment of the electricity consumption. OP would like to bring in the knowledge of this Forum that the complainant is having the connected load of 8.880 KW and the season is of the summer month however if the consumer feels that the reading in on the higher side and the meter is not working properly, then the consumer has the opportunity to challenge the bill after depositing the meter challenge fees. After that the meter is to be replaced by a new one and the previous meter will be got checked by the ME Lab, but for the best known reason, the complainant has never applied or deposit the meter replacement fee. It is further averred that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant against the OP, this is nothing, but a misuse of process of law and further alleged that the bill sent to the complainant is as per law and as per the rules of the PSPCL. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the installation of the electricity meter in the house of the complainant is not denied, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/14 and closed the evidence.

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

8. Precisely, the allegations of the complainant are that the complainant has taken domestic electricity connection having old account number J71WF24140F and new AC No.3001348754 and complainant is paying regularly energy consumption bills to the OP and nothing may due to be paid out of the regular energy consumption bills to the OPs. But in the month of June, a bill dated 23.06.2016 for the charging period 03.03.2016 to 23.03.2016 was received by the complainant for an amounting to Rs..48,390/- and unit consumed by the complainant was to the tune of Rs.6424/-, but such a huge unit never consumed by the complainant because the consumption of the complainant is not to that extent and this can be assessed from the regular bills produced on the file by the OP i.e. Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-14 and further alleged that the complainant again received a bill dated 25.08.2016 for the period 23.06.2016 to 25.08.2016, amounting to Rs.55,390/-, which is on a higher side because the complainant never consume such a huge unit i.e. 7209 as shown in the aforesaid bill dated 25.08.2016 and further alleged that the said bill is illegal, null and void and liable to be quashed and further OP No.1 be directed to also compensate the complainant by paying compensation as well as litigation expenses.

9. To the contrary, the version of the complainant is controverted by the OPs, simply on the ground that the disputed bill is relating to the summer period and during summer period, the consumers used to switch on AC and whereby the consumption is used to increase during the summer period comparing to winter season and as such, the bill issued to the complainant is according to the consumption as shown in the meter and as such, the bill is legal rather the complainant has filed the instant complaint simply to mis-use the process of law.

10. We have sympathetically taken into consideration the entire facts as elaborated in the complaint as well as in the reply and also gone through the bills and other documents produced by both the parties and come to conclusion that as per the bills, produced by the OP i.e. Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP14, itself shows that the consumption of the electricity by the complainant is not on a higher side rather in routine the consumption is about 200 to 800 unit except the disputed bill for the month of August and June and this consumption is alleged to be increased due to some defect in the electronic meter, which gave a status of the meter as 'N' Code, but this factum has been categorically denied by the OP in the reply as well as in the affidavit Ex.OP/A, but the man can live, but document cannot.

11. In the light of above observation, we like to refer a bill dated 23.06.2016 Ex.C-4 bearing the status of the meter has been virtually shown 'N' Code. So, the version of the OP itself falsified, if we surmise the case of the complainant in the light of the documents i.e. bills of electricity, there from we can reach to right conclusion and accordingly, we like to refer a bill Ex.OP-6 dated 03.03.2016 for the charging period 13.07.2015 to 03.03.2016, for amounting to Rs.872/- and consumption of electric unit of previous month i.e. June, July and March has been shown 172 to 150 in the said bill. The old consumption shown in the aforesaid bill Ex.OP-6 is 7050 and new consumption 7233 and accordingly, new consumption has been shown in the next bill dated 01.07.2016 i.e. 7233 and new consumption 7657 total unit consumption 424 and charging period 03.03.2016 to 23.06.2016 for the same charging period, the OP has previously issued a bill dated 23.06.2016, which is Ex.C-4, but this bill has not been intentionally produced on the file by the OP, the said bill Ex.C-4 pertaining to the period 03.03.2016 to 23.06.2016 and units consumed have been shown 6424, it is astonished to see that the OP has issued two bills for the same period i.e. 03.03.2016to 23.06.2016 i.e. Bill Ex.C-2 dated 01.07.2016 showing consumption unit 424 and bill Ex.C-4 dated 23.06.2016 showing consumption unit 6414. It is clearly established that the OP has illegally and negligently issued the bill dated 23.06.2016 Ex.C-4 showing consumption of unit 6424 and then on the request of the complainant again checked the electric meter of the same period on 01.07.2016 and whereby showed a consumption unit 424 of the same period i.e. 03.03.2016 to 23.06.2016. So, this is the affect of the 'N' Code status of the meter as alleged by the complainant and similarly, the consumption of the electricity unit has been again shown to higher side i.e. 7209 Unit, in the bill Ex.C-1 dated 25.08.2016 for the period 23.06.2016 to 25.08.2016 and bill amount is Rs.55,117/-. When the previous highest bill received by the complainant in the month of June for the consumption of 6424 unit, complainant submitted regularly three applications to the OP for installation of check meter at his residential electricity connection, these applications are Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 and its postal receipts are Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10, but despite the written request of the complainant for installation checked meter, the OP did not bother, which shows the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, we come to conclusion that the OP has illegally and arbitrarily issued a wrong bill to the complainant.

12. In the light of above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and accordingly, the bill dated 25.08.2016 Ex.C-1 for amounting to Rs.55,390/- is hereby set-aside and OPs are directed to charge actually consumption of the electricity from the complainant for the above said period i.e. 23.06.2016 to 25.08.2016 and further the 50% amount of the aforesaid bill dated 25.08.2016 have been already deposited by the complainant on the direction of this Forum, regarding that the OPs are directed to adjust the said amount of 50% in the consumption charges as well as in the future consumption bills and OPs are directed to pay compensation for mental and physical harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.7000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. 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.

13. 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 Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

25.04.2018 Member President