BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.33 of 2015

Date of Instt. 05.02.2015

Date of Decision :16.07.2015

Bir Bahadur Singh @ Vir Singh son of Bhim Bahadur R/o House No.3, Near Bal Bharti School, Santokhpura, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

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

2. Senior XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, East Special Division, Pathankot, Byepass, Jalandhar.

3. S.D.O, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Commercial-II, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Rajneesh Dev Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vishal Sodhi Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that this is second round of litigation between parties to the complaint. Earlier the opposite parties sent inflated electricity bill dated 13.8.2010 for Rs.46,765/- in respect of electricity connection bearing A/c No.JYCH 620479P installed in the residential house of complainant, which is bearing contacted load of 3.52 KW. The said bill was challenged before the predecessor of this Forum in consumer complaint No.524 of 2010 dated 19.8.2010 decided on 1.8.2011. In the first round of litigation, decided on 1.8.2011 the Forum was pleased to set aside inflated bill dated 13.8.2010 for Rs.46,765/- illegally raised with the direction to opposite parties to get the meter checked in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant and after receipt of report, notice be given to the complainant for raising the demand. Compliance of the order dated 1.8.2011 was to be made within one month of the receipt of the copy. Aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.2011, the opposite parties did not got check the meter in the presence of complainant in ME Lab for test report nor sent any demand notice for raising the demand. No notice whatsoever was served for testing of meter as there was dispute w.r.t meter in first round litigation. Aggrieved opposite parties, sent illegal electricity bills and put pressure on complainant to deposit the electricity charges under the threat of disconnection. The current average charges of electricity consumption for two months is about Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/-, but the complainant had been receiving inflated huge demands and time to time deposited the following amounts with the opposite parties:-

(i) Receipt No.161 dated 6.2.2012 for Rs.18020/-.

(ii) Receipt No.316 dated 29.3.2011 for Rs.15000/-.

(iii) Receipt No.53 dated 22.9.2011 for Rs.26,660/-.

(iv) Receipt No.166 dated 18.5.2012 for Rs.4990/-.

(v) Receipt No.135 dated 28.8.2012 for Rs.14,230/-.

(vi) Receipt No.385 dated 19.8.2013 for Rs.13150/-.

(vii) Receipt No.166 dated 24.6.2013 for Rs.11,000/-.

(viii) Receipt No.103 dated 11.12.2012 for Rs.5000/-.

(ix) Receipt No.107 dated 11.12.2012 for Rs.5540/-.

(x) Receipt No.5 dated 29.3.2014 for Rs.24,000/-.

(xi) Receipt No.177 dated 25.3.2014 for Rs.25,000/-.

(xii) Receipt No.175 dated 30.9.2014 for Rs.8000/-.

3. The complainant received huge bill of domestic connection No.JYCH 620479P, bearing No.296 dated 17.10.2014 for Rs.72,844/- which was to be paid upto 30.10.2014. The complainant met the officials of opposite parties to know the details of the bill. One officials declared the detail of the said bill that current bill is Rs.38960/- and court case charges as Rs.55540/-, total comes to Rs.94500/-.The present bill is an illegal bill and is liable to be quashed as there is no case of unauthorized use or theft of energy. The detail of bill has been given in writing by the officials of opposite parties. The meter in dispute is fixed outside the house/residence. The opposite parties without prior notice disconnected the electricity connection and removed the meter at the back of complainant or his agent without following procedure of law. The meter was removed about 10 days back. It is very hardship on the part of the complainant and his family to live without electricity in the present days. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to restore the electricity connection and further for quashing the demand of bill No.296 dated 17.10.2014 for Rs.72,844/-. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

3. Upon, notice opposite parties appeared through counsel but filed written reply on behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 3 raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, suppression of material facts, estoppel etc. On merits they pleaded that the earlier bill sent to the opposite parties of dated 13.8.2010 for Rs.46,615/- in respect of electricity connection bearing A/c No.JYCH62/0479P installed in the residential house of complainant, having sanctioned load of 3.52 K.W was correct and as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL. The order passed by this Forum on 1.8.2011 setting-aside bill dated 23.8.2010 also gave directions to get the meter checked in ME Lab and after receipt of the report notice be given to the complainant for raising the demand. Hence, as per direction of this Forum the meter was got checked in ME Lab and it was found that working of the meter was OK and demand was raised but the complainant paid the bills in part. The above said checking in ME Lab was already in the notice of the complainant. The bills sent to the complainant were on the basis of actual consumption. After adopting the procedure the meter of the complainant was permanently removed vide PDCO No.71/60630 dated 2.1.2015. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C28 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW/A alongwith documents Ex.POPW/1 to Ex.OPW2/3 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. It is not disputed that complainant earlier challenged one bill amounting Rs.46765/- sent to him by opposite parties in consumer complaint No.524 of 2010 decided on 1.8.2011. Ex.C1 is copy of order passed in that complaint. The relevant operative operation of the above said order is as under:-

"The demand raised vide bill dated 13.8.2010 is set-aside, the opposite parties are directed to get the meter checked in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant and after receipt of report, notice be given to complainant for raising the demand. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the receipt of copy of this order".

8. In the present complaint, the complainant has challenged bill No.296 dated 17.10.2014 for Rs.72844/- Ex.C3. So far electrical connection of the complainant is concerned it was ordered to be restored vide order dated 12.2.2015, subject to his depositing 50% of the disputed amount of Rs.72,844/-. At the time of arguments, counsels for both the parties admitted that in the impugned bill the amount of previous bill i.e Rs.46765/- has been included. The opposite parties have produced statement of account Ex.OPW/1 to show the part payments made by the complainant from time to time. Receipt Ex.C14 produced by the complainant relates to some other account number. The only dispute involved in the present complaint, is whether the opposite parties were justified in adding amount of the previous bill which has been set-aside vide order dated 1.8.2011 Ex.C1. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that the meter was got checked in ME Lab and Ex.OPW/2 is report of ME Lab dated 31.5.2012 and as per this report, the meter was OK. The opposite parties have also produced meter change ordered Ex.OPW/3. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that after receipt of report of ME Lab, the amount involved in the previous complaint was added in subsequent bills. He further contended that the present complaint is time barred. On the other hand, counsel for complainant contended that the opposite parties never complied with the order dated 1.8.2011 as the meter was never got checked in ME Lab in the presence of the complainant and further no notice was given to the complainant for raising the demand on the basis of ME Lab report. He further contended that as no notice was given to the complainant for raising the demand on the basis of report of ME lab as per order dated 1.8.2014, the question of limitation does not arise. He further contended that the opposite parties never disclosed that the amount of previous bill which has been set aside, has been added in the subsequent bill and only on receipt of impugned bill dated 17.10.2014, complainant made inquiries and one official of the opposite parties gave in writing Ex.C2 showing the amount of court case as Rs.55,540/- and the total outstanding amount including that amount as Rs.94500/-. He further contended that even otherwise from the date of knowledge the complaint is within limitation. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. While accepting the previous complaint, it was specifically ordered that opposite parties shall get the meter checked in ME Lab in the presence of complainant and after receipt of report notice shall be given to the complainant for raising demand. The opposite parties have not produced any document to show that any notice was given to the complainant for testing of the meter in ME Lab. The opposite parties have also not placed on record any notice given to the complainant for raising the demand on the basis of report of ME Lab. So the order dated 1.8.2011 in the previous complaint vide which the demand of Rs.46765/- was set-aside was never complied with by the opposite parties as no notice was given to the complainant for checking of the meter in ME Lab or before raising the demand on the basis of report of ME Lab. When the above said order has not been complied with, the question of limitation does not arise. In the written reply, opposite parties have not specifically pleaded, when the amount which has been set-aside in the previous complaint was added in the current consumption bill of the complainant. Moreover, before adding any disputed amount in the current consumption bill a prior demand notice is required to be given to the consumer claiming such amount and only thereafter if the consumer fails to deposit the amount, the same can be included in the current consumption bill. Moreover it is in the affidavit of the complainant that he received huge bill dated 17.10.2014 for Rs.72844/- and met the officials of the opposite parties to know the details of the bill and one official declared the details of the said bill that current bill is Rs.38960/- and court case charges as Rs.55540/- total Rs.94550/-. It is further in his affidavit that detail of the bill has been given in writing by the official of the opposite parties Ex.C2 is writing in this regard. So even otherwise from the date of knowledge, the complaint is within limitation. Moreover, as already observed above, the amount of the previous bill, which has been set-aside, has been added in the consumption bill of the complainant without giving any notice to him which is in violation of the order dated 1.8.2011 passed by this Forum. So the demand of Rs.46765/- and any surcharge added on it which has been included in the impugned bill dated 17.10.2014 for Rs.72844/- can not be legally sustained.

9. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and out of the impugned bill No.296 dated 17.10.2014 for Rs.72844/- Ex.C3, the demand of Rs.46765/- and the amount of any surcharge etc added on this amount is hereby set-aside. The complainant is awarded Rs.5000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. After deducting the above said amount from the current consumption bill, the excess, if any, shall be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in his future bill. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

16.07.2015 Member Member President