BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.196 of 2015

Date of Instt. 11.05.2015

Date of Decision :19.08.2015

Mohanjit Singh Saini son of Bhagwant Saini, 215-L, Model Town, Jalandhar.

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

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, through SDO, Model Town Division, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.VB Mehta Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.KL Dua Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant is the consumer of electric connection bearing account No.J72GT461311N installed at his residence at 215-L, Model Town, Jalandhar. Complainant is residing in the said house alongwith his family for the last more than 20 years and is paying the electricity consumption charges regularly and no amount is due from the complainant to the opposite party. All of a sudden, the complainant received electricity bill No.88 dated 29.3.2015, wherein the opposite party has raised a demand of Rs.90670/-. The complainant was surprised to see the bill and checked his own record and found that all previous bills have been regularly paid and no amount is due to be paid. On receiving the bill, the complainant approached the opposite party and made enquries but they failed to justify their illegal demand and told the complainant to pay Rs.60,000/- instead of Rs.90670/-. The complainant is not ready to pay this amount as the same is not at all due from the complainant. The complainant had been receiving the average electricity bills to the tune of Rs.8000/- to Rs.15000/-. At the present bill in question is far in excess then the actual consumption of the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for setting-aside the demand of Rs.90670/- and restraining it from disconnecting his electricity supply on the basis of said demand. He has also claimed damages and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the amount in question is legally payable by the complainant. The amount in question has been charged in respect of the electricity consumed by the complainant. He was explained that there was some clerical mistake on the part of the meter reader so the earlier bills from 15.7.2014 to the bill in question were charged less and when the mistake came to the notice then the demand has been raised. The complainant was satisfied and he requested the opposite party that he is not in a position to pay the amount in question in lump sum and he should be allowed to make the payment in the installments and he moved an application for the said purpose addressed to the SDO on 22.4.2015 and the SDO was pleased to allow the complainant to make the payment of the bill in two installments. It is pertinent to point out here that the meter reader of the opposite party unintentionally made report "N" instead of "X" Code in the month of July 2014. The factual position is that the consumer/ complainant has consumed earlier 97827 units. When the meter reader went to take the reading of the consumption, he has shown the status of the meter as 'N' which says that the meter is to be removed. Whereas he should have reported as 'X' which means that the meter has completed its circle of 99999 and then thereafter the reading is to be started as 1. So the complainant was sent the bill for 385 units whereas he should have received the bill of 2557 units (99999-97827=2172+385) and then meter reader reported the status of the meter as 'F' which means Meter Changed, whereas in fact the meter was never changed. This process continued up to the month of January 2015 and all the times the status of the meter was shown to be 'F' which was factually wrong as no meter was changed and the meter has completed its circle of the units and again started from 1. In the end of the month of the January 2015, the computer showed the report 'C' in respect of the connection. But no MCO was available, as the meter was never changed. So the meter was checked with the Chandigarh. As there was a fire in the civil secretariat on 5.2.2014 so there was no data available with the said office. So the entire record was again reconciled and the after the completion of the circle of the meter, the said units of 2172 were calculated and later on all the consumption of the complainant was calculated. The amount was also calculated for the consumption of the entire units and the amount paid by the consumer was subtracted. As such the outstanding amount was charged from the complainant. So no excess amount has been charged. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. 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.C4 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OPW/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Ex.C1 is the disputed bill dated 29.3.2015 for Rs.90670/-. According to the opposite party, the earlier bills from 15.7.2014 to the bill in dispute were charged less and when mistake came to the notice then the demand has been raised. According to the opposite party, the complainant has consumed earlier 97827 units and when the meter reader went to take the reading of the consumption, he has shown the status of the meter as 'N' which means that the meter is to be removed, whereas he should have reported the status of the meter as 'X' which means that the meter has completed its circle of 99999 and then thereafter the reading is to be started as 1 and due to this reason the complainant was sent the bill for 385 units whereas he should have received the bill of 2557 units (99999-97827=2172+385). Further according to the opposite party, then meter reader reported the status of the meter as 'F' which means that meter has been changed, whereas in fact the meter was never changed and this process continued up to the month of January 2015. So according to the opposite party, due to above mistake the complainant was charged less and amount was calculated for the consumption of the entire units and the amount paid by the consumer was subtracted and the outstanding amount was charged from him. Counsel for the complainant contended that before adding the arrears of the previous period on account of alleged mistake no separate demand notice was issued to the complainant/consumer to explain his position and the amount was directly added in the current consumption bill Ex.C1. He further contended that according to the own instructions or regulations of the power corporation, arrears can not be added in the current consumption bill and in all such cases separate bill or demand notice is required to be sent to the consumer with full details of the charges levied. On the other hand, opposite party contended that the complainant has been charged on account of actual consumption of electricity and the demand was raised vide impugned bill after above said mistake came to the notice. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party has failed to show if any separate bill or demand notice regarding arrears of the previous period was ever issued to the complainant before issuing him the impugned bill Ex.C1. Regulation or instructions No.93.1 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual of the Power Corporation provide as under:-

"93. Payment of arrears not originally billed:-

93.1 There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/unauthorized use of electricity or demand/ load surcharge pointed out by internal auditor/detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/multiplication factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc. In all such cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges shall be shown as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills shall be issued separately giving complete details of the charges in regard to theft cases, slowness of meters, wrong connections of the meter and unauthorized of use electricity etc. In such cases the copy of relevant instructions under which the charges have been levied shall also be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of cases by consumer forums if approached by the consumer".

7. So as per above instructions or regulations, the opposite party was required to send separate bill or demand notice giving complete details of the previous arrears. The object of this regulation is that the consumer should know the ground on which he is being charged besides the current consumption and should have an opportunity to represent the power corporation regarding the disputed demand. So the above said bill has been issued without issuing any separate demand notice or bill giving complete details of the charges levied for the earlier period and it is in violation of principles of natural justice. It constitute deficiency in service. The impugned bill is in violation of the above said regulations or instructions issued by the power corporation itself.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and impugned demand of Rs.90670/- is set-aside. However, the opposite party at liberty to issue a separate bill or demand notice to the complainant giving the full particulars or details of the charges which are due from him for the period in question. Complainant shall be at liberty to approach the opposite party if he is not satisfied with the said bill or demand notice to be issued by the opposite party. In case the amount of such demand notice on bill remains unpaid then the opposite party shall be justified to add the amount of said demand notice or bill in the subsequent consumption bill. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. 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

19.08.2015 Member Member President