BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.51 of 2018
Date of Instt. 05.02.2018 Date of Decision: 19.09.2022
Parmod Sehgal S/o Sh. K. K. Sehgal, R/o 329, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Div. Abadpura, Jalandhar through its S. D. O.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Divisional Office Model Town, Buta Mandi, Jalandhar through its X. En.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Naveen Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. SKS Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is a consumer of domestic electric connection bearing No.J72BC310205L and the complainant received an electricity bill dated 28.11.2017 for Rs.43,470/-. The OPs No.1 and 2 are providing the various types of services to the consumers and the OPs are having their office Jalandhar. The complainant paid the electricity bills regularly on the basis of the consumption which is averagely 35 to 400 units in two month. The complainant gone abroad alongwith his family during 18.07.2016 to 15.09.2016 and the house of the complainant was remained locked during this period and there was no consumption of the electricity and within this period the OPs in the absence of the complainant changed the electricity meter. When the complainant came back to India he received a electricity bill to the tune of Rs.33,660/- and on the receipt of the said bill the complainant immediately approached to the office of the OPs regarding this inflated bill and pointed out the previous consumption is only 350 to 400 units per month which can be verified from their record. The OP No.1 assured the complainant that the next bill be rectified but the complainant continuously receiving the accumulated bill with arrears. Then the complainant started making written complaints through emails as well as on personal visits on 27.04.2017 and on 22.07.2017 and lastly on 02.11.2017. Inspite of the above said written complaint, the OPs had not rectified the bills till date and again sent a bill to the complainant to the tune of Rs.43,470/-, since then the complainant visited the office of the OPs but none has paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant, rather the officials of the OPs threatened the complainant, the electric connection will be disconnected in the event of non-depositing the bill amount of Rs.43,470/-. The OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice and sent the inflated bills to the complainant and did not rectify the said bills inspite of repeated requests on personal visits and on written requests vide letters mentioned above and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to rectify the bills on the strength of previous electricity consumption. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- being the losses suffered due to visits to the OPs and further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed, just to harass the answering OP and has been filed just to create hindrance so that the complainant will not pay the outstanding amount due towards him. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable in the present form, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant against the answering OPs. Rather cause of action arose to the answering OPs against the complainant for dragging the answering OPs in the false and frivolous complaint. The complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and intentionally and deliberately concealed the material facts from this Commission. The story narrated in the para of the complaint is concocted and cooked-up story and has been made just to knock the soft corner of the Commission. The meter of the consumer was never changed, whereas by mistake the status of the meter has been shown as changed, whereas actually it was never changed. On merits, the factum with regard to installing domestic electric connection in the house of the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the complainant received an electricity bill, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed the evidence.
4. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OW1/A and close the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant has challenged the electricity bill dated 28.11.2017 for Rs.43,470/-. The complainant has alleged that he had gone abroad from 18.07.2016 to 15.09.2016 and his house remained locked, during this period, there was no consumption of the electricity and during this period, the electricity meter was changed and he received the bill to the tune of Rs.33,660/-. Despite the complaints made number of times to the OP through email, his grievance has not been redressed.
7. The contention of the OPs is that no meter was ever changed. The electricity bill was sent as per the consumption of the electricity by the complainant. They have admitted that inadvertently at the time of billing in the month of May, 2016, the word ‘changed meter’ has been mentioned and the same was rectified later on and the consumption found during this period was charged and the revised bill was sent and the adjustment of excess payment made by the complainant, was made. They have given the detail how the amount has been adjusted. The complainant has relied upon the bills Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2. Ex.C-2 is for amount of Rs.37,031/- and this relates to the period from 11.07.2017 to 25.09.2017. The complainant has filed on record the bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7. Ex.C-1, Ex.C-4, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-7 are not legible. The complainant has been asked number of times to produce on record the photocopy of the bills, so that correct reading may be considered and the correct period and bill be considered, but the complainant has not produced on record any bill, which are legible. The complainant has alleged that the letters were written to the OP intimating that he had gone abroad during the billing cycle 18.07.2016 to 15.09.2016. He has produced on record the emails and letters Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-13. The complainant has not produced on record any document to show that during this period i.e. 18.07.2016 to 05.09.2016, he was not in India rather he had gone abroad. The OPs have produced on record the amended bill showing the old reading date 16.03.2016 till 06.05.2017, where the status has been shown ‘O’ and as per the submission and defence taken in the written statement, the adjustment was made and the amount of Rs.17,670/- were shown to be payable by the complainant. The total consumption has been shown as 3756 units for the period of 416 days. The bill of the period from 06.05.2017 to 11.07.2017 produced by the OPs show that the current arrears have been shown of Rs.18,439/- and the net amount payable becomes Rs.28,460/- with the current cycle charges Rs.9868/-. Similarly, Ex.C-2 shows the bill cycle 11.07.2017 to 09.09.2017 for 60 days and the consumption has been shown as 1074 units. In this bill also, the current arrears have been shown as Rs.29,460/-. Similarly, for the period from 09.09.2017 to 15.11.2017, the arrears have been shown as Rs.31,185/-, which the complainant has not paid. As per Ex.C-13, the complainant has alleged that the consumptions have been shown exorbitantly high in units, which are as under:-
18.07.2016 to 05.09.2016 = 620 units
16.03.2017 to 06.05.2017 = 3756 units.
06.05.2017 to 11.07.2017 = 1345 units.
But this detail mentioned by the complainant is not as per the bills furnished by the OPs, vide which the amount of Rs.7825/- has been adjusted and the period shown is 416 days from 16.03.2016 to 06.05.2017 and the consumption has been shown as 3756 units, meaning thereby that the period mentioned by the complainant in his letter Ex.C-12 showing 620 units and 3756 units separately is covered and only the bill has been sent for 3756 units for 416 days. The bill for the period from 06.05.2017 to 11.07.2017 is of 1345 units for 66 days. The complainant has not produced on record any bill to show that his average consumption in normal situation has been 300-400 units per billing cycle as alleged by the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. However, the 50% of the amount, if any deposited by the complainant as per the order of the Forum dated 07.02.2018 be adjusted in the future bills. 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 Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
19.09.2022 Member Member President
