Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/22/133

Manish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR

 

                                                          Consumer Complaint No.133 of 28.09.2022

                                                                   Date of Decision:  31.03.2023

 

Manish Kumar son of Shri Bindu Jha, resident of House No.1685/P, Public Colony, Rupnagar,  Tehsil & District Rupnagar through his Power of Attorney Bindu Jha son of Late Shri Kant Jha, resident of House No.1685/P, Public Colony, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.   

                                                                                      …..Complainant

                                                 Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Sub Divisional Officer, 132-KV Power Colony, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar  

(Complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act)

QUORUM:

 

                   KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                   RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

                   RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

 

For complainant:            Bindu Jha, authorised representative

For OP:                          Sh. K.S.Longia, Advocate  

         

 ORDER

PER KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on the averments that the OP is being represented by its SDO, to take care of its consumers of Rupnagar. The complainant is domestic consumer of the OP of electricity supply, which has been provided to house No.1685/P, Public Colony, Rupnagar and he is paying electricity bills regularly and there is nothing adverse report against the complainant so far.  The Government of Punjab from 1.7.2022 has provided the domestic electricity consumers to supply free electricity to their citizens upto 600 units of two months consumption. The complainant is also covered under the said scheme of the Punjab Government. The meter in question is electronic meter and is fitted outside the gate of the complainant since long about 9 years back. On 6.9.2022, the OP issued domestic electricity connection bill for the period 5.7.2022 to 6.9.2022 till the time the said bill was issued to the complainant and from going through the said bill, the consumption reading is shown on 20422 and its previous reading of 5.7.2022 is 20089 and the same comes to 333 units consumption whereas the Op has shown total consumption as 763 units for the said period in the bill in dispute which is totally wrong and illegal. In this connection, the complainant made representation to the OP dated 8.9.2022 and requested them to correct the bill in question and to treat the actual consumption less than 600 units and provide the said benefit of Punjab Government, which has come in force from 1.7.2022. Copy of the representation is already placed on record. In the said house, the parents of the complainant are normally residing. After the said representation, in the absence of the complainant and his family members, the concerned official of the OP lifted the previous electricity meter and in its place fitted other meter and when the father of the complainant along with his mother returned in evening of 16.9.2022 and then it was noticed that the previous meter has been lifted and in its place other meter has been placed. When, the father of the complainant contacted the Jr. Engineer, PSPCL, Rupnagar and asked him about change of meter and also status of previous meter then he told that the previous meter has been replaced when its reading was 20510 units as on 16.09.2022 when the previous meter was taken by them which means total consumption of said meter from 6.9.2022 to 16.09.2-022 was 88 units. Further when he was asked the status of present meter which has been placed in place of previous meter then he told in the present meter consumption was already 427 units and thereafter as per reading the complainant would have to pay electricity bill. In this connection, the father of the complainant made several visits to the office of the OP and requested the official of the OP including the SDO PSPCL, 132 KV Power Colony Rupnagar to correct the said disputed bill and to issue fresh bill by the considering consumption under 600 units and they had been assuring that hte needful would be done but finally on 19.9.2022 he refused to do the needful and further threatened that if the bill in question is not paid within stipulated period the supply of the electricity would be disconnected and they will realize the bill amount with penalty and they were requested to refrain themselves from their said wrong and illegal designs but they refused said requests of the complainant. Due to the said act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered mental and physical harassment and also suffered monetary loss and prayed for following reliefs against the OP:-

1. To withdraw their electricity bill of account No.3000348124 of house No.1685/P, Public Colony, Rupnagar for the period 5.7.2022 to 6.9.2022, which has been issued for Rs.3450/- by wrongly considering units consumption of 763 whereas it comes to 333 units and to treat the consumption of electricity for the period of domestic connection under 600 units and to provide the benefit of present Punjab Government which has made the domestic consumption for two months if it comes under 600 units as free to the consumer and the case of the complainant is covered under the said provision of Government.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as damages and also interest thereon @ 12% per annum on account of harassment caused to the petitioner from 6.9.2022 till its realization and to restrain the OP from disconnecting the electricity supply of the said account and to realize the said amount or any amount till the decision of the present complaint and addition of Rs.4010/-0 in the present bill of Rs.4010/- for the period 6.9.2022 to 2.11.2022 be declared wrong and illegal.  

2. Upon notice, OP has appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On merits, it is stated that the bill dated 6.9.2022 and bill dated 17.9.2022 are on the basis of average consumption recorded in the same month of the corresponding year because the meter of the complainant was dead stop. The meter reader pointed out on 5.7.2022 that hte mter of hte complainant is dead stop and on the report of the meter reader a meter change order was issued on 7.7.2022 and was effected on 14.9.2022 and a new meter was installed after the removal of the meter. The meter was sent to ME Lab in routine and ME Lab confirmed that meter is dead stop vide their report dated 21.9.2022. The bill dated 6.9.2022 was issued on the basis of Dcode for the sum of Rs.3460/- which was based on average consumption recorded in the same month in the last year. Since the meter was replaced and on compliance of MCO bill dated 17.9.2022 was issued for sum of Rs.430/- for 93 units was claimed. Too was based on average of the last year of the same month and the next bill be generated on the basis of actual consumption. In fact bill dated 6.9.2022 is for 763 units and does not cover under the policy of Government i.e. complainant is not entitled for concession of 600 units by month. The bill dated 17.9.2022 is for 8 days for Rs.430/- for 97 units and this period also does not cover under the policy as by monthly consumption exceed 600 units by monthly and comes to 727 units by monthly. Only free supply is made available to the consumer, who consume less than 600 units by monthly. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and lastly prayed to dismiss the present complaint.      
3.  In order to prove the case, the representative of the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit of Sh. Vishal Gogona, Add. SE Ex.OP1 along with documents warranty card Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the complaint file along with documents very minutely.
5. In the present complaint, the complainant has vehemently argued that the OP has wrongly issued the bill against Rs.3450/- and meter reader pointed out on 5.7.2022 that the meter of the complainant is dead stop and on the report of meter reader and meter change order (MCO) was issued on 07.07.2022 and was effected on 14.9.2022 and new meter was installed after the removal of the meter. The meter was send to ME Lab in routine and ME lab confirmed that the meter is dead stop vide their report dated 21.09.2022.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has also argued that the OP has rightly issued the electricity bill dated 06.09.2022 for Rs.3460/- as the electricity meter of the complainant was dead and report was also given by the ME Lab and the said bill was issued by the OP on the basis of D code, which was based on average consumption recorded in the same month in the last year. As per document Ex.OP5, the total consumption of the complainant for the same month in the last year was 763 units of 63 days because the OP has issued the current bill on the basis of average consumption recorded in the last year, the complainant had consumed more than 10 units per day, so the complainant is not entitled for any subsidy given by the Government criteria. 
7. To prove his case, the learned counsel for the OP has placed on record Ex.OP3 i.e. Job order for device replacement, which shows that the electricity meter of the complainant was dead and new meter was installed on the basis of said document. Ex.OP2 i.e. electricity bill, it is mentioned in the Ex.OP2 that the status of the meter of the complainant was dead and the bill was issued on the basis of D code. As per Ex.OP4 i.e. ME Challan/report, electricity meter of complainant “1 electronic defective old meter”. To rebut the version of the OP, the complainant has not placed on record any documents.
8. In view of above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, the present complaint stands dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to deposit the outstanding amount in three equal installments per month. The OP is also directed to take the said outstanding amount with the three installments from the complainant.  Free certified copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. The file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.
9.  

(Kuljit Singh)

President

 

 

(Ranvir Kaur)

•  

 

 

(Ramesh Kumar Gupta)

Member