DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.169 of 13.5.2019

                                      Decided on:         25.9.2024

Dhanpat Rai aged about 72 years son of late Sh.Chiranji Lal, resident of House No.134, Ajit Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chief Engineer/DS(South), PSPCL, Patiala.
2. Chief Engineer/DS (South), PSPCL, Patiala.
3. Sr.Executive Engineer, West DS Division, PSPCL, Officers Flat No.21, Shakti Vihar, Patiala.
4. Assistant Executive Engineer, West Sub Division, PSPCL, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh.Pushvinder Singh, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY              

                                       Sh.Ranjan Gupta, counsel for complainant.

                                      Smt.Neena Kaushal, counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

                                      G.S.NAGI,MEMBER

1. The instant complaint is filed by Dhanpat Rai  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chief Engineer  and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that complainant is holder of electricity connection bearing a/c No.3000000645, installed at his premises. On 22.7.2018 complainant received an abnormal electricity bill for a sum of Rs.32,160/-.On receipt of the said bill complainant   contacted the officials of OPs, who advised him to deposit the amount and thereafter to approach the Divisional Dispute Settlement Committee. That complainant deposited the amount of the bill in question vide draft No.08016 dated 31.7.2018, vide receipt dated 1.8.2018.
3. That on the very next day as per the suggestion of the OPs. Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.450/- as meter challenge fee vide No.214700099102 and also submitted an application on the prescribed proforma with West Sub division. Thereafter the meter was changed on 10.9.2018. Thereafter complainant made representation to the Divisional Dispute Settlement Committee and vide order dated 12.4.2019 his representation was rejected.
4. It is averred that earlier also the meter was not giving correct readings. It is further averred that a bill dated 27.11.2016 was received for a period of about 2 months, for the amount of Rs.9750/- which was deposited by the complainant on 28.11.2016.Similarly a bill of Rs.11650/- was raised vide bill dated 29.11.2017 , Rs.1400/- dated 21.3.2017 after the correction of the bill, Rs.12170/- on 16.5.2017, Rs.13890/- was deposited on 17.7.2017 against the bill, which is not legible, Rs.8990/- against bill dated 18.9.2017, Rs.19180/- was deposited against bill dated 16.11.2017 and Rs.7750/- was again deposited against bill dated 17.1.2018.Similarly from 17.1.2018 to 20.3.2018 units consumed were 894 and the bill amount was Rs.9600/-, from 20.3.2018 to 11.5.2018 units consumed were 1071 and the bill amount was Rs.11,270/-. Thereafter the complainant received in the bill in dispute for the period from 11.5.2018 to 22.7.2018 for 72 days for 3636 units.
5. It is averred that though the meter was running fast, but still no such huge number of units were being consumed but after the change of meter the consumption of units has gone much on lower side, which shows that the earlier meter was running on the higher side.
6. It is further averred that DSC has  taken into consideration 1149 units consumed with regard to the old meter and 945 units have been consumed with regard to the new meter and that the said amount of Rs.18489/- is for 117 days i.e. for about 4 months. It is averred that the said committee has found that from 16.11.2018 to 19.1.2019 there has been consumption of 817 units only for a period of 64 days. That the meter was not correct and the same was not checked in the presence of the complainant. That the act of the OPs is wrong, illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.32160/- or in the alternative correct the bill as per the average of previous and subsequent period of the impugned bill and refund the balance amount or adjust the same in the future bills and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
7. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written reply having contested the complaint. It is admitted that the complainant is holder of the electricity connection in question. It is submitted that bill of Rs.32160/- is valid and correct . It is further submitted that after challenging the disputed meter by the complainant the same was checked by the checking team in the ME Lab vide challan No.59 dated 11.10.2018 in the presence of Er.Paramjit Singh. Who had taken the old meter of the complainant to ME Lab. The checking team found that the accuracy of the meter was OK. After that the complainant approached Dispute Settlement Committee  and challenged the disputed bill of Rs.31864/- dated 22.7.2018 for the period 11.5.2018 to 22.7.2018 i.e. 72 days of 3636 units with status of the meter “O” code. That the officials of the DSC called the complainant on 12.4.2019 for deciding his complaint. That complainant appeared on the said date before the committee. That the committee after considering oral as well as written objections of the complainant found that the disputed bill was  legal and valid and was issued on the basis of the usage of electricity energy by the complainant. That the report of ME Lab with regard to the old meter was OK.
8. It is averred that the complainant has mentioned the bills of the period of winter season and the disputed bill is of summer period. That the meter was checked as per the procedure of the PSPCL rules. That the Disputes Settlement Committee has considered all the facts, data and record of the disputed meter. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments, OPs have prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
9. In evidence ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents i.e. Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 bill and receipt,Ex.C3 copy of representation dated 28.3.2019,Ex.C4 to Ex.C7 copies of bills and receipts,Ex.C8 copy of decision of Disputes Settlement Committee,Exs.C9 to C28 copies of bills and receipts and closed the evidence.
10. The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Inderpal Singh, Sr.Court Clerk of PSPCL alongwith certified documents,Ex.OP1 order of Dispute Settlement Committee (two pages),Ex.OP2 letter from officials of PSPCL dated 10.4.2019, Ex.OP3 data of account of complainant,Ex.OP4 letter of complainant dated 28.3.2019,Ex.OP5disputed bill dated 22.7.2018,Ex.OP6 letter of the officials of the OP dated 28.3.2019, Ex.OP7 consumption and payments of the disputed old meter,Ex.OP8 reading of the meters from 10.11.2011 to 15.3.2019,Ex.OP9 readings of meter of the consumer from 20.1.2016 to 15.3.2019, Ex.OP10 reply of the petition of the complainant,Ex.OP11 Dispute Settlement Committee detail performa, Ex.OP12 job order for device replacement,Ex.OP13 report of ME lab dated 11.10.2018, Ex.OP14 payment receipts ( 7 pages) and closed the evidence.
11. Written arguments by the parties have been filed. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. The complainant has alleged that he is the holder of an electricity connection bearing a/c No.3000000645 which is installed in his name at his residence and is using electricity from the said connection. The complainant has alleged that an abnormal bill amounting to Rs.32160/- was issued to him on 22.7.2018.The complainant deposited the said bill through demand draft on 1.8.2018, as per Ex.C1.The complainant then challenged the working of the meter by depositing meter challenge fee of Rs.450/- on 2.8.2018 vide receipt Ex.C2. It is alleged that the meter of the complainant was then replaced on 10.9.2018 after a period of 40 days from the date of challenge of the meter. The case was referred to the Disputes Settlement Committee of the OPs but his prayer was rejected as per the order of the Disputes Settlement Committee dated 12.4.2019, which is Ex.C8.The complainant has alleged that the disputed meter was not checked in his presence. The complainant has further alleged that prior to this also the meter of the complainant was not giving correct readings and has submitted that bill dated 27.11.2016 was issued for Rs.9750/-, bill dated 29.11.2017 was issued for 11650/-, Rs.12170/- on 16.5.2017, Rs.8990/- on 9/2017, Rs.19180/- on 11/017 , Rs.7750/- on 1/2018, Rs.9600/-on 3/2018 and Rs.11,970/- on 5/2018. The complainant has alleged that as such electricity meter was running fast from 2016 onwards. The complainant has submitted that the bills issued to the complainant are abnormal and Disputes Settlement Committee has not taken into consideration the plea of the complainant and has taken a unilateral decision. The complainant as such has prayed for the refund of Rs.32160/- deposited by him against the bill dated 22.7.2018 and has prayed for the issue of correct bill. The complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment.
13. The OPs in their written statement and affidavit of Inderpal Singh Sr.Court Clerk have submitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs and is using electricity from the connection bearing a/c No.3000000645 which is installed in the name of the complainant at his residence. The OPs have submitted that the bill amounting to Rs.32160/- was issued to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption and is valid and correct. The OPs have further submitted that the working of the meter was challenged by the complainant and said meter was checked in the M.E.Lab against challan No.59 dated 11.10.2018 where accuracy of the meter was found to be OK. The said checking report is Ex.OP13. The complainant then approached Disputes Settlement Committee of the OPs as per the representation made by him vide letter dated 28.3.2019,Ex.OP4. The complainant then appeared before the Disputes Settlement Committee on 12.4.2019 where the complainant was heard at length by the said Committee and decision was conveyed vide order dated 12.4.2019,Ex.OP1 , wherein the bill issued to the complainant on 22.7.2018 for Rs.32160/- was found to be in order and recoverable. The OPs have placed on record the copy of the consumption data for the complainant from 20.1.2016 to 15.3.2019, Ex.OP9 and have submitted reading record from 10.11.2011 to 15.3.2019 as per Ex.OP8.The OPs have pleaded that the bill dated 12.7.2018 which has been challenged by the complainant is at par with the consumption of the complainant during the previous years and as such the bill dated 12.7.208 for Rs.32160/- issued to the complainant is in order and recoverable.
14. The OPs have further submitted that even after the replacement of the meter with the new one , the consumption of the complainant from 16.11.2018 to 19.1.2019 has been recorded as 817 units and even being the winter season this consumption is at par with that of consumption disputed by the complainant which is for the peak summer season. It is submitted that the bills issued to the complainant are on the basis of actual consumption and at par with the consumption recorded by the complainant during the previous years .The OPs have as such prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
15. We have gone through the rival submissions of the parties and the evidence placed on record.
16. The complainant has disputed the bill dated 22.7.2018 which has been issued for the period 11.5.2018 to 22.7.2018 i.e. for 72 days for a consumption of 3636 units with initial reading being 143599 on 11.5.2018 and final reading 147235 on 22.7.2018 for an amount of Rs.32180/-. The said bill was deposited by the complainant and the working of the meter was then challenged. The meter of the complainant was replaced and working of the meter was checking in the M.E.Lab where the working of the meter was found to be OK. The complainant has also alleged that the bills issued to him from the year 2016 onwards were also abnormal.
17. We have gone through the reading and consumption data of the complainant from the period 2011 onward. All the bills were issued to the complainant on the basis of actual meter reading till 22.7.2018 with OK status of the meter. The consumption data of the complainant during the summer season i.e. from May to July is tabulated below:

18. The history of the consumption data reveals that the consumption of 4217units ,4346units, 2748 units, 3832 units was recorded by the complainant during the corresponding period of the years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively as tabulated above. Even the average per day consumption recorded for the months May to July is to the tune of 58.72, 66.94, 70.09, 48.21, 60.82, 31,44 and 50.5. During the corresponding period of the year 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 respectively, whereas the consumption challenged by the complainant during the period 11.5.2018, 22.7.2018 is 3636 units which works out at an average of 50.50 units per day. As such the bill challenged by the complainant based on the consumption recorded from 11.5.2018 to 22.7.2018 is comparable with (even less than) the consumption recorded by the complainant during the years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 respectively. The complainant had never challenged the bills issued to him during these years from 2012 to 2017 onwards. Even the working of the meter so challenged by the complainant during the year 2018 was checked in M.E.Lab and was found to be in order. As such, we are of the opinion that the bill issued to the complainant for the period 11.5.2018 to 22.7.2018 for 72 days for a consumption of 3636 units amounting to Rs.32180/- is in order and is recoverable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. We do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
19. The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work and for want of Quorum from long time.

                                              G.S.Nagi                PUSHVINDER SINGH

                                              Member                          President