BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.448 of 2016
Date of Instt. 01.11.2016
Date of Decision:16.01.2018
Sh. Sukhraj Singh son of Lt. Balraj Singh permanent resident of Canada at present resident of Jandiala District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.
2. SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Sub Division Samrai District Jalandhar. ..….…Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Vivek Jain, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. DR Seth, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is resident of the above said address and is an NRI. There is one electric connection installed in the name of his father namely Balraj Singh son of Naranjan Singh, bearing No.X56LJ210091Y at Jandiala and said connection is domestic. That unfortunately father of the complainant died on 16th June, 2010 and after his death, the complainant used the said electric connection and paying the due to the OP regularly and there is no default on the part of the complainant.
2. That as the complainant is permanent resident of Canada and he used to reside abroad with his family for number of months in a year and during that period, only one chowkidar/servant of the complainant reside in the aforesaid house in one room. Now when the complainant came to India in the month of August, 2016, then he received one bill dated 14.10.2016 from the OP for an amount of Rs.42,410/- for the period 18.08.2016 to 14.10.2016. The complainant shocked to receive such a huge bill because as per the bill, the meter of the complainant is 'OK' and the actual consumption is of Rs.11,363/- and the OP added the sundry charges of Rs.28,850/- in the same. Thereafter, the complainant visited to the office of the OP No.2 and enquire about the said sundry charges then the official of the OP show one letter to the complainant and told that the said sundry charges leveled as per the said letter. The complainant demanded the copy of the said letter, but they refused to supply the same, but only allowed the complainant to take photo of the same and the complainant take the photograph of the same through his mobile. After going through the said letter, the complainant shocked as the amount of Rs.28,850/- was imposed to the complainant on the basis of one alleged audit report, in which it was alleged that the electricity consumption of the complainant for the previous year is higher than the current period. The electricity meters are installed in one common box of many persons and the said box installed far away from the house of the complainant.
3. That thereafter, the complainant visited to the office of XEN and SE and requested them that the said letter was never received by the complainant and the complainant has no knowledge about the same, moreover, the period which is referred in the said letter, the complainant and his family were not in India and the complainant also show his passport to them, but they failed to concede to the legal demand of the complainant and told to the complainant that if the complainant did not deposit the entire amount, then they will disconnect the connection of the complainant. In the alleged letter, the OP said that the consumption of the complainant for the period 8/2014 to 12/2014 is less, whereas in the said period the complainant was not in India and this fact clearly proved from the passport of the complainant and as per the passport, the complainant went abroad on 22nd June, 2014 and returned to India on 25th December, 2014 and because of this reason, the electricity consumption was low for that period. The meter of the complainant is 'OK' and there is no report of any meter reader with respect to any tempering with the said meter and as per the settled law, the complainant is only bound to pay the actual electricity charges only. Except the bill in dispute, the complainant received the electricity bills on the basis of the actual consumption and regularly paying the same without any default and now the OP imposed the frivolous sundry charges for the year 2014 without any justification and cause. The complainant approached the OP No.2, but failed to get any justice 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 correct the bill dated 14.10.2016 and sent the bill as per the actual consumption after removal of illegal and excess sundry charges of Rs.28,850/- and the alleged letter, which is undated is vague and not binding on the complainant and also directed to pay to the complainant the compensation alongwith costs.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the claim of the complainant by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the charges have been leveled by the Audit Party of the OPs on account of electric meter account No.LJ-21/91 in the name of the Balraj Singh found defective. It is further averred that the complainant does not have any locus-standi to file the present complaint as Sh. Balraj Singh is the actual consumer of the respondents as per record. Moreover, the complainant has never got change the electric meter in his name, even the complainant does not have any cause of action against the OPs and even this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because the actual consumer should have approached the competent authority of the OP to file the objections against the order of assessment and got the dispute decided. On merits, the factum in regard to installation of the electric meter is admitted and issue of bill in the name of Balraj Singh as per record also admitted and further alleged that the electric meter of the consumer Balraj Singh was changed in routine and it has been found defective, which was changed on 24.02.2015, vide meter change order (MCO) No.134/105643. The Audit Party of the OPs checked the accounts of the consumer and found that due to meter being defective in the month 2/2015, the consumption from 8/2014 to 12/2014 was detected to be much less, whereas in the month 4/2014 and 6/2014 is much higher and the account has been overhauled with the average from 8/2014 to 12/2014. Because the consumption has gone higher w.e.f. from 4/2014, vide Audit Report dated 15.06.2016 and accordingly, a notice of demand No.1803 dated 05.09.2016 for a sum of Rs.28,850/- had been given to the Consumer Balraj Singh, who has failed to file any Objection and the other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
6. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely with the able assistance of both the counsels.
8. After considering the over all factor as elaborated in the complaint as well as in the reply, we find that the factum in regard to installation of the electricity connection in the name of Balraj Singh son of Naranjan Singh, is not in dispute. Though, the OP alleged that the complainant Sukhraj Singh having no locus standi or he is not a consumer and as such, he has no authenticity to file the present complaint being a reason, he is not a consumer rather one Balraj Singh is the consumer. In response to this objection of the OP, we find that the complainant himself alleged that he is the son of Balraj Singh and his father has died on 16.06.2010, though the electricity connection has not been got transferred by the complainant in his own name, but being the son of the deceased Balraj Singh, the complainant is came into step of his father and he has a right to file an instant complaint.
9. So for the allegations made by the complainant that the OP has imposed a sundry charges of Rs.28,850/- on the basis of alleged Audit Report, but the said charges of Rs.28,850/- is alleged by the complainant is illegal because in the month of August, 2014 to December, 2014, the complainant never reside in the house, where the electricity connection is installed and due to that reason, the consumption of that period comes lower than the other months and therefore, the complainant is liable to pay only the consumption charges, whatsoever electricity has been consumed by the complainant and not liable to pay any excessive charges and accordingly, challenged the bill issued in the month August, 2016, whereby demanded a sum of Rs.42,410/-, out of which Rs.28,850/- is added as sundry charges, which is illegal.
10. To the contrary, the plea taken by the OP is that the electric meter of the consumer Balraj Singh was changed in routine and it was found defective, which was changed on 24.02.2015, thereafter, the Audit Party of the OP checked the account of the consumer and found that due to meter being defective in the month of 2/2015, the consumption from 8/2014 to 12/2014 was deducted to be much less, whereas in the month 4/2014 and 6/2014 is much higher and the account has been overhauled and on the basis of the Audit Report, a notice of demand of Rs.28,850/- was sent to the consumer Balraj Singh, which is apparently right and legal.
11. We have considered the plea taken by both the parties and we find that as per allegations of the OP, the electric meter of the consumer Balraj Singh was changed in routine and the same was found defective, if the meter of the consumer was changed, then obviously it was got checked from the ME-Lab and if, so got inspected from the ME-Lab, then a notice must be given to the consumer or his legal heir and if, the defective meter was got checked from the ME-Lab in the absence of the consumer, then the report thereof is not binding on the consumer and similarly in this complaint, the Audit Party has calculated the sundry charges on the basis of defective meter and no notice was given to the consumer at the time of changing the meter as well as checking of the same from the ME-Lab. So, with these observations, we find that there is numerous illegality on the part of the OPs and as such, we reach to the conclusion that the allegations made by the complainant that the sundry charges demanded by the complainant, vide bill issued in the month of August, 2016 as well as vide letter dated 05.09.2016 are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to issue the bill dated 14.10.2016 on the basis of actually consumption after removal of the sundry charges of Rs.28,850/- and further, the OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for mental harassment, to the tune of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. 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
16.01.2018 Member President
