Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that NRS electric connection bearing account No.F54GT540665K is installed in her name and she is paying the electricity charges regularly and nothing is due against her and hence, she is consumer of the Opposite Parties under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant further alleges that on 20.07.2017 the electric meter installed on the said connection got burnt due to some fault and in this regard, she  lodged a complaint  No.8066377 on the toll free number 1912 of the Opposite Parties and on 21.07.2017 necessary fee of Rs.1920/- has been deposited with the Opposite Parties for the replacement of the burnt meter with new one. Thereafter, Opposite Parties issued her bill on 07.08.2017 on average basis vide which they raised a demand of Rs.75,470/-. Said demand of the Opposite Parties is altogether illegal, unjust void  at law and is liable to be set aside. It is pertinent to mention over here that the consumption of the electricity of the Complainant remains between 300 to 550 units, but the bill in dispute has been sent by the Opposite Parties wrongly by taking average consumption of 9479 units, to which the Opposite Parties have absolutely got no right, title or interest in doing so. The Opposite Parties were asked many a times to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant, but they finally  refused to do so. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant is left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to set aside the demand of Rs.75,470/- raised by the Opposite Parties vide bill dated 07.08.2017. 

b)      The amount of Rs.20,000/- be allowed to be paid by the opposite parties on account of mental tension and harassment caused to the complainant.

c)       And any other relief to which this Commission may deem fit be granted.       

2.       Opposite Parties  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Commission. The electric  connection in dispute in the name of Complainant is installed under NRS category having sanctioned load of 15.90 KW. Actual facts are that electric meter of the Complainant was burnt  and same was changed by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the bill for the month of August, 2017 was issued to the Complainant on average basis for Rs.75,470/- by taking the average of August 2016 and the said demand is raised by the Opposite Parties in accordance with rules and regulations of the  corporation and hence the Complainant is liable to pay the bill in dispute to the Opposite Parties both in law and equity. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.   Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In order to  prove  her  case, the complainant has placed on record  her affidavit Ex.C1, copies of bills and receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C17, copy of letter Ex.C18,  copy of receipt of Rs.1920/- Ex.C19,  copy of letter Ex.C20, copies of bills Ex.C21 to Ex.C25 and closed the evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties also tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Raminder Singh, SDO Ex.OPs1, copy of data Ex.OPs2, copies of bills Ex.OPs3 to Ex.OPs17 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written arguments filed by the Opposite Parties  and gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, Ld.counsel for the Complainant has  reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that on 20.07.2017 the electric meter installed on the connection of the Complainant got burnt due to some fault and in this regard, she  lodged a complaint  No.8066377 on the toll free number 1912 of the Opposite Parties and on 21.07.2017 necessary fee of Rs.1920/- has been deposited with the Opposite Parties for the replacement of the burnt meter with new one. Thereafter, Opposite Parties issued her bill on 07.08.2017 on average basis vide which they raised a demand of Rs.75,470/-.  Said demand of the Opposite Parties is altogether illegal, unjust void  at law and is liable to be set aside. It is pertinent to mention over here that the consumption of the electricity of the Complainant remains between 300 to 550 units, but the bill in dispute has been sent by the Opposite Parties wrongly by taking average consumption of 9479 units, to which the Opposite Parties have absolutely got no right, title or interest in doing so. The Opposite Parties were asked many a times to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant, but they finally  refused to do so. As such, deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties is alleged by the Complainant.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Complainant on the ground that  the electric connection in question was burnt and the same was changed by the Opposite Parties-corporation and the bill for the month of August, 2017 was issued on average basis amounting to Rs.75,470/- and the said bill was issued on the  basis  of bill for the previous year August 2016 and in this way, the Opposite Parties-Corporation has rightly issued the said bill as per the rules and regulation of the corporation. In this way, the demand of the Opposite Parties is legal one and in accordance with rules and regulations of the Opposite Parties-Corporation and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

8.       It is not disputed that the  on 20.07.2017 the electric meter installed on the connection of the Complainant got burnt due to some fault and in this regard, she  lodged a complaint  No.8066377 on the toll free number 1912 of the Opposite Parties and on 21.07.2017 necessary fee of Rs.1920/- has been deposited with the Opposite Parties for the replacement of the burnt meter with new one, copy of the application is Ex.C18 and copy of receipt Ex.C19. Thereafter, Opposite Parties issued her bill on 07.08.2017 allegedly on average basis vide which they raised a demand of Rs.75,470/-. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has argued that  the said bill was issued on the  basis  of bill for the previous year August 2016 and in this way, the Opposite Parties-Corporation has rightly issued the said bill as per the rules and regulation of the corporation. But however, we are not convinced with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties. Perusal of the bill dated 16.08.2016 (Ex.C21) shows that it is for the consumption of 7299 units  showing Previous Units as 9999 and Current Units as: 17298 for 53 days. Bare perusal of the previous bills Ex.C22 to Ex.C25 shows that in those bills the Opposite Parties has shown the previous date 18.5.2015 showing consumption of 413 days, 381 days, 352 days, 320 days,  but in the bill for the month of August, 2016 on the basis of which the account of the overhauled,  the Opposite Parties have shown the consumption of 53 days for the reasons best known to them. Hence, it appears that  there is some ill will and the officials of the Opposite Parties have wrongly and illegally mentioned the consumption days as 53 days, but these should be more than 400 days.   In this way, the amount raised by the Opposite Parties vide impugned bill appears to be based on the  exorbitant consumption/ excessive billing than the normal consumption of the Complainant.

9.       Moreover, the Consumer Fora  has fullest jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to excessive billing in case the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice, as per law laid down in case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and another vs. M.D. Imtiyaz-IV (2014) CPJ- 25 (Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). So, certainly this Forum has jurisdiction to decide the matter in question, particularly when the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice as discussed hereinafter.

10.     Regulation 21.5.1 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 (as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Reg.97 dated November 5, 2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette(Extra) dated November 5, 2014) provides that account of the consumer, whose meter on testing found to be beyond the limits of prescribed accuracy, shall be overhauled and the electricity charges for all categories of consumers shall be computed in accordance with the said test results for a period not exceeding six months immediately preceding the date of test, in case meter has been tested at site to the satisfaction of the consumer or replacement of inaccurate meter, whichever is later. In the instant case, the consumption bill Ex.C2 shows that the impugned exorbitant consumption is relating to the bill for the month of August, 2017 on exorbitant/ excessive average consumption. Furthermore, the status of the last consumption history as shown in the bill (Ex.C22) of July, 2016 makes it clear that the  cycle average  remains as 866, 1908, 1972, 1844, 1972, 1972 units of  one year which clearly proves that the consumption of the complainant on the said connection never exceeded 1972 units in last six billing months.

11.     Regulation 21.5.2 of Electricity Supply Code of 2014 (supra) provides that the  overhauling of the billing for period of six months will be on the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year and in case, the said consumption for corresponding period not available, then average monthly consumption of previous six months during which meter was functional shall be adjudged for overhauling of the accounts and as such, certainly violation of regulation 21.5.2 of rules and regulations 2015 referred above also  committed in this case.

12.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the  demand of Rs.75,470/- alongwith surcharge, interest & penalty etc. imposed upon it, raised by the Opposite Parties vide bill dated 07.08.2017 (Ex.C2)  from the Complainant  is set aside being violative of rules and regulations and principles of natural justice. However,  the Opposite Parties are at liberty to charge the Complainant for the month of August, 2017 by taking the average  consumption of 1972 units as detailed above. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay lump sum compensation  of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) on account of harassment, mental tension  and litigation expenses, to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to adjust or refund the amount, if any, deposited by the Complainant against the disputed bill with the Opposite Parties  during the pendancy of the present complaint while overhauling the account of the Complainant.    The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

13.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the two Whole Time Members in this Commission since 15.09.2018. Moreover, the President of this Commission is doing additional duties at District Consumer Commission, Bhatinda as well as  Faridkot. There is only one working day in a week when the quorum of this Commission remains complete.   Announced in Open Commission.

Dated: 12.03.2021.