BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.195 of 2017

Date of Instt. 28.06.2017

Date of Decision: 06.06.2018

Balwinder Singh son of Sh. Sadhu Singh R/o VPO Haira, Tehsil Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. J.E. Sahib, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Sub Division, Mallian Kalan, Tehsil Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh. KL Dua, Adv Counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant has an electricity connection and having an account No.59CH220148P. The complainant is belonged to poor family and feeding his family by doing labourer and the electricity bill received for the two month of Rs.16,406/-, which is higher side from the previous bills. The complainant has no Air Conditioner nor any cooler even there is no electric motor installed in his house. The complainant is using only one electric bulb and one fan and according to the consumption of the complainant, the above said electricity consumption bill is very high. As per meter reading, 294 unit was consumed by the complainant. The complainant filed an application on 19.06.2017 to the XEN, PSPCL Ltd, Sub Division, Nakodar, which was marked to SDO, Sub-Division, Nakodar and further the same was marked to JE-I, Mallian and when the said JE was asked to correct the bill, but he flatly refused and stated to the complainant that he has to pay the said bill otherwise your electricity connection will be disconnected. As per consumption of the complainant, the said electricity charges are very huge and further prayed that the electricity bill of the complainant may be got corrected from the OP and compensation may also be awarded for harassment.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint and further averred that the complainant is barred by his act and conduct from filing the present complaint and even the present complaint is misuse of the process of the Forum. It is further alleged that in fact the meter of the complainant was removed as per the Key Inspection Report as the same was not corrected and the MCO No.11/103190 dated 21.09.2016 was issued. As per the Half Margin Report of the Internal Audit bearing No.124 dated 17.03.2017, the difference of the units actually consumed by the complainant was charged. As per the MCO, the reading of the removed meter was 8002 units and the consumer was charged as up to the month of 8/16 to the extent of 5795 Units. So, there was difference of the units i.e. 8002 – 5795= 2207 units. The complainant was sent the bill for the month of 6/16 and of 8/16 on the average basis i.e. of 94 units and of 95 units and the same were deducted from 2207 units which came to be 2018 units and as such, the complainant was charged for 2018 units in the bill in question, which is correct. The complainant is bound to pay the charges for the consumption of the electricity. There is no illegality of any kind in the bill in question. So, the complainant is bound to pay the same and further alleged that the false and frivolous complaint has been filed with malafide intention, just to delay the legal payment of the OPs and further averred that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost. On merits, the factum in regard to installation of the electricity connection in the house of the complainant is admitted, but the other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.

4. Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the complainant in person as well as the learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6. After considering the plea taken by the complainant as well as the case set up by the OP, we find that the OP has not denied that the amount of Rs.16,406/- was inserted in the bill Ex.C-1, rather the OP alleged that the said amount is virtually a difference of the two meters because the first meter of the complainant was removed and the second was installed and the difference of the reading of both the meters was calculated and the amount so comes was included in the said bill. To establish that the meter of the complainant was removed, the OP has placed on the file photostat copy of the order Ex.C-3 for replacement of the electric meter of the complainant and further the OP has proved on the file the calculation Ex.OP-2 in regard to consumption reading of both the meters and further OP also proved on the file a letter Ex.OP-1 sent by the OP No.2 through its counsel Sh. KL Dua, Adv. Without going to deeply, in the case of the complainant, if we considered the plea taken by the OP, then we can conclude without any hesitation that the OP has not adopted the procedure as envisaged in the electricity rules, as per rules whenever any electric meter of any consumer is to be changed/removed, then its notice should be given to the consumer and further the meter should have to change in the presence of the consumer and memo thereof should be prepared at the spot, which must be signed/thumb marked by the consumer, but in this case, the meter of the complainant was removed and changed only in a paper, without the notice of the complainant nor any intimation was given to the complainant and even as per version of the complainant, the meter was changed in the month of August, 2016 as mentioned in the letter Ex.O-1, if the meter was removed in the month of August and meter reading was noted up to 8/16 (August, 2016) as elaborated in the aforesaid letter Ex.OP-1, then how and under what circumstances, the next bill for 17.12.2010 to 17.02.2017 was issued to the complainant on the basis of actually unit consumed by the complainant and further a bill in the month of April 2017 was also issued to the complainant, wherein the unit consumed by the complainant have been shown 54, but how and under what circumstance, all of sudden, the previous amount of Rs.16,406/- was calculated and added in the bill issued in the month of June 2017. As per rule and regulation of the Electricity Board, if any arrear is imposed upon the consumer, then it should not be directly inserted in the current bill rather a separate notice must be served to the complainant for that bill, but in this case, the OP has not adopted the said procedure. So, from all angles, we are of the considered opinion that the said amount of Rs.16,406/- has been included in the disputed bill wrongly and illegally, because the OP has not able to establish on the file that there was any difference of reading of two meters. Moreover, the change of meter is not in the notice of the complainant, there is no copy of the notice served to the complainant prior to changing of the meter is available and moreover, the previous bill sent to the complainant on the basis of actually consumption of the unit consumed by the complainant, that were not on average basis and thus, the version of the complainant is absolutely true and correct. Therefore, the OP cannot recover the said disputed amount of Rs.16,406/- from the complainant.

7. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to not recover the said disputed amount of Rs.16,406/- from the complainant rather only to recover the amount of actually consumption of the unit i.e. 294 along with other miscellaneous charges and further OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.5000/- for mental harassment. 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.

8. 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

06.06.2018 Member President