Punjab

Moga

CC/16/136

Baljinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Ajit Verma

04 Jan 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 136 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 17.08.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 04.01.2017

 

Baljinder Singh aged about 62 years, son of Darbara Singh, resident of VPO Tarewala (Nawan Moga), Moga.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala-147001.

 

2.       X.E.N. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Moga.

 

3.       Sub -Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, North Sub - Division South Moga, Tehsil and District Moga.   

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Ajit Verma, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. S.K. Dhir, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to accurate/correct the billing system of the complainant, bearing consumer no. F24KR940755W. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service, Rs.20,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical as well as mental harassment and Rs.7700/- as litigation expenses to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is the consumer of opposite parties and holder of an electric connection bearing no.F24KR940755W which is installed in the house of the complainant, which is used by complainant and his family since long. The complainant was paying his consumption charges regularly and there is nothing due towards the complainant. Normally bill of the complainant is between 2000 to 3000, but in the month of March, 2016 opposite parties sent an bill dated 20.03.2016 for an amount of Rs.15,204/- by mentioning false additional charges and the complainant went to the office of opposite parties and told about the same to opposite party no.3 and after going through the checking, official of opposite parties admitted that it is an clerical or computerize mistake and he corrected/accurate the bill dated 20.03.2016 and directed the complainant to deposit Rs.2340/- only and the complainant deposited the same against duly issued receipt dated 04.04.2016. Again in the month of May, on 23.05.2016 opposite parties sent an bill dated 23.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.16,710/- by mentioning false additional charges and the complainant went to the office of opposite parties and told about the same and after going through and checking, official of opposite parties admitted that it is an clerical or computerize mistake and again he correct/accurate the bill dated 23.05.2016 and directed the complainant to deposit Rs.3950/- and complainant deposited the same against receipt dated 07.06.2016. Again on 22.07.2016, opposite parties issued bill dated 22.07.2016 for an amount of Rs.16,995/-, the complainant again visited the office of opposite parties and requested them to correct his billing system, this time, the officials of the opposite parties refused to correct the bill. But earlier they admitted that it is the official mistake and they corrected the same for two times, but now, they refused the same. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of opposite parties, but to no effect. Due to abvoesaid illegal act and conduct of opposite parties, the complainant had suffered mental tension, agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed separate written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum. Actual facts are that electric connection in dispute in the name of complainant. The meter reading is same from 05.15 to 09.15, meter was declared defective and bill was issued on average basis of 1767 units amounting to Rs.14,280/- out of which, the complainant deposited Rs.2830/-. Thereafter bill for 10.15 to 12.15 issued for Rs.15,881/- on average basis and the complainant deposited Rs.2880/- out the abovesiad bill and thereafter bill for 09.15 to January 2016 was issued for Rs.31,836/- out of which Rs.29,793/- has been adjusted vide sundry charges and amount of Rs.3940/- was deposited by the complainant. The defective meter was changed by the opposite parties. The audit party vide half margin no.49 dt. 6/2016 deducted the mistake that the opposite party corporation has given double refund to the complainant. The amount of Rs.12,867/- charged by the opposite parties. The complainant is liable to pay the disputed amount to the opposite parties. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence. 

5.                On the other hand, opposite parties tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Sukhdeep Singh, S.D.O PSPC Ltd. Ex.OPs-1 and copies of documents Ex.OPs-2 to Ex.OPs-5 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                Ld. counsel for complainant argued that the complainant is having an electric connection bearing no.F24KR940755W. The complainant was paying his consumption charges regularly and there is nothing due towards the complainant. Normally the bill of the complainant was between 2000 to 3000, but in the month of March, 2016 received an bill dated 20.03.2016 for an amount of Rs.15,204/-. On it, the complainant approached to the office of opposite parties, where the official of opposite parties admitted that it is an clerical or computerize mistake and complainant was asked to deposit Rs.2340/- only and the complainant deposited the said amount against duly issued receipt dated 04.04.2016. Again in the month of May, on 23.05.2016 complainant received an bill dated 23.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.16,710/-. The complainant approached to the office of opposite parties, who again admitting the mistake corrected the bill dated 23.05.2016 and complainant deposited Rs.3950/- against receipt dated 07.06.2016. Again on 22.07.2016, opposite parties issued bill dated 22.07.2016 for an amount of Rs.16,995/-, the complainant again visited the office of opposite parties and requested them to correct his bill,  but the officials of the opposite parties refused to correct the bill. Due to acts of opposite parties, the complainant had suffered mental tension, agony, physical harassment and financial loss.

8.                On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite parties argued that electric connection in dispute was in the name of complainant. The meter reading is same from 05.15 to 09.15, as such meter was declared defective and bill was issued on average basis of 1767 units amounting to Rs.14,280/- out of which, the complainant deposited Rs.2830/-. Thereafter bill for 10.15 to 12.15 issued for Rs.15,881/- on average basis and the complainant deposited Rs.2880/- out the abovesiad bill and thereafter bill for 09.15 to January 2016 was issued for Rs.31,836/- out of which Rs.29,793/- has been adjusted vide sundry charges and amount of Rs.3940/- was deposited by the complainant. The defective meter was changed by the opposite parties. The audit party vide half margin no.49 dt. 6/2016 deducted the mistake that the opposite party corporation has given double refund to the complainant. The amount of Rs.12,867/- charged by the opposite parties. The complainant is liable to pay the disputed amount to the opposite parties.

9.                We have thoroughly gone through the file, evidence and arguments lead by ld. counsel for the parties. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is having an electric connection bearing no.F24KR940755W. In the month of March, 2016 received an bill dated 20.03.2016 for an amount of Rs.15,204/-. On it, the complainant approached to the office of opposite parties, where the official of opposite parties admitted their mistake and corrected the bill. Again in the month of May, on 23.05.2016 complainant received an bill dated 23.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.16,710/-. The complainant approached to the office of opposite parties, who again admitting the mistake corrected the bill. Thereafter again on 22.07.2016, opposite parties issued bill dated 22.07.2016 for an amount of Rs.16,995/-, the complainant again visited the office of opposite parties and requested them to correct his bill,  but the officials of the opposite parties refused to correct the bill. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for opposite parties argued that old meter of the complainant was declared defective and the bill was issued for the period 02.09.2015 to 19.10.2015 on average basis for 1767 units and again bill for the period 19.10.2015 to 09.12.2015 was issued on average basis for 1918 units. But the complainant did not pay the entire amount of these bills and paid only Rs.2830/- and Rs.2880/- respectively against these bills. Amount for consumption of this period is still due against the complainant and after making adjustment of the amount paid by the complainant. The amount claimed in bills in question is still due towards the arrear of previous bills. Admittedly, the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was replaced with new one. The complainant produced on record bills for previous period as well as after change of defective meter, which shows that consumption of the complainant is less, however the opposite parties raised the bill on average basis in very excess according to his previous bills. As per our view, this calculation has not been made as per the rules and regulations of the PSPC. In case the meter was found defective/ burnt, section 21.4 (g) (ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 vide notification no. PSERC/Secy./ Regu.31 dated June, 29, 2007 states as under:-

“The account of a consumer will be overhauled for the period a defective meter remained at site and for the period of direct supply, on the basis of energy consumption of the corresponding period of the previous year after calibrating for the changes in load, if any. In case the average consumption for the corresponding period of the previous year is not available then the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicated in para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous/ succeeding year. 

 

10.              In the instant case, the average consumption for the corresponding period of the previous year must be available with the opposite parties, so in view of the aforementioned section 21.4 (g) (ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicated in Para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year.

11.              In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and the impugned demand raised by the opposite parties from the complainant vide bill dated 22.07.2016 for Rs.12,867/- is set aside and quashed. However, the opposite parties are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period by overhauling his account on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year.  In case, the complainant has already paid the bill amount in dispute, the opposite parties shall adjust the excess amount, if any, against the future consumption bill(s) of the complainant after overhauling the account as mentioned above. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 04.01.2017.

 

                               (Bhupinder Kaur)                 (Vinod Bala)         (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                            Member                President