BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint  No.01 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 01.01.2020                   Date of Decision: 26.10.2022

Geeta Rani w/o Sh. Guljari Lal Sarangal aged about 67 years r/o H. No.WX-25, Basti Nau, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office, The Mall, Patiala, through its CMD.

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Model Town Commercial       Sub-Division-5, Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar through its SDO/AEE.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Arvind Sharda, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. K. L. Dua, 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 house wife who has taken the domestic supply electricity connection from the OPs under account bearing no.3002979306. Earlier the complainant had regularly been paying energy consumption bills to the OPs. One of the last bill, which was issued by the OPs in the year 2013, was inflated one amounting Rs.1,20,000/- approximately. On receiving the said bill, the complainant approached the OPs to know about the reasons of such an inflated bill. To this, the OP No.2 told the complainant that the electricity meter installed at the house of complainant seemed to have gone faulty and recording of its reading had jumped. The OP No.2 advised the complainant to challenge the said meter by depositing meter challenge fee with the office. The jumping of meter is a fault under which the electricity meter shows excessive consumption of units without there being the corresponding consumption of electricity. Action on the advice of the OP No.2, on 01.01.2014, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.700/- towards the mete3r challenge fee with the OP No.2. However, the OPs installed a new meter at the premises of the complainant and removed the old meter, which was subject matter of challenge by the complainant. Even after receiving the meter challenge fee, the OPs did nothing to comply with the mandatory provisions of electricity supply code and related maters regulations 2007 in respect to the meter challenge by the complainant. The OPs neither carried any site checking of the old faulty meter before removal from the premises of the complainant nor took the same for checking at their own ME Lab. On the contrary, the OPs kept on showing the disputed amount in the regular energy consumption charges and also kept on adding 18% interest and late payment charges on the disputed amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. Whereas, the complainant had been paying the current regular energy consumption charges to the OPs after deducting the disputed amount. Now the OPs have issued a regular energy consumption bill dated 16.12.2019 under which the consumption of units of electricity is correctly shown to be 404 units on which the current energy consumption charges comes out to be Rs.3682/- whereas the rest of the amount of Rs.4,78,849/- pertains to the disputed amount alongwith interest and late payment charges. The OP No.2 was approached by the complainant and she requested the OP No.2 once again to send the old meter to the ME Lab for checking but the OP No.2 has failed to listen her. Further, the OP No.2 directed the complainant to deposit the impugned bill immediately, otherwise the supply of electricity to the residence of the complainant would be disconnected. This act of the OPs of raising an incorrect and inflated regular energy consumption bill dated 16.12.2019 amounting Rs.4,82,531/-, their failure to comply with the mandatory provision of carrying checking at ME Lab after receipt of meter challenge fee and their threatening to disconnect the supply of electricity of residence of the complainant due to non-deposit of impugned amount, has caused mental harassment to the complainant 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 quash an amount of Rs.4,78,849/- out of the regular energy consumption bill dated 04.12.2019. Further to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing harassment to the complainant and Rs.22,000/- 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 complainant had not been making the payment of the bills without any reasonable cause and is continuing defaulter in respect of the payment of the bills, raised from her, on account of consumption of electricity, so the amount was correctly raised from the complainant and she is legally bound to pay the same. It is further averred that the present complaint is misuse of the process of this Commmission. The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint, with malafide intention, just to delay and avoid the legal outstanding payment in respect of the electricity consume. It is further averred that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present false and frivolous complaint. The part of the amount challenged is barred by limitation and the receipt does not in respect of the connection of the complainant. The false and frivolous complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs to the tune of Rs.20,000/- under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, the factum with regard to installation of the electricity connection in the house of the complainant is admitted, 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.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.  

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant very minutely.

6.                The contention of the complainant is that the complainant is the consumer of the electricity connection under account bearing number 3002979306. She has been making payment of the bills regularly to the OPs in the year 2013. She received a bill of Rs.1,20,000/- approximately, which was challenged by the complainant by making a payment of Rs.700/- on 01.01.2014, but the OPs did not check the accuracy of the meter either at the site or at the laboratory as per Regulation 21.3.6 (b) of Electricity Supply Code and other Regulations. He has relied upon the receipt of payment of Rs.700/- Ex.C-1. He has also relied upon the provisions of Electricity Supply Code and Regulation 21.3 of Electricity Supply Code. He has also referred Regulation 21.5.1 of Electricity Supply Code and submitted that as per this regulation, if after checking the meter is found to be inaccurate, the account of the consumer is to be overhauled for a period of six months proceedings the date of the said checking. It has been alleged that the OP did not carry the checking of the meter as per the law rather they kept on supplying electricity to the house of the complainant through a faulty meter since 01.01.2014. The OPs have not complied with the rules and regulations even after admitting the fact that the meter was defective, but the same was never got checked from ME Lab nor sent for checking to the ME Lab. Request has been made to quash the amount of Rs.4,78,849/- out of the regular energy consumption bill dated 04.12.2019 alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

7.                He has relied upon the law Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Ashwani Kuamr, (P&H), S. L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan, (SC) and M/s Tirupati Industries Vs. PSEB (P&H).

8.                The Ld. Counsel for the OPs has submitted that the complainant has not been making payment of the bills and the amount has correctly been raised from the complainant regarding the consumption of electricity by the complainant. The complainant has never challenged any bill as alleged. He has further submitted that the OP has never advised the complainant to challenge the bill as alleged. The receipt relied upon by the complainant Ex.C-1 does not pertain to the meter in question. The complainant has never challenged the bill within time rather she has come to the Commission after five years. No document has been filed by the complainant alongwith the complaint. Therefore, she is not entitled to any relief. He has further submitted that as the meter was defective as per the bills so, the meter was changed on 31.08.2014 and the new meter no.6806 was installed. Thereafter, the regular bills were sent to the complainant, but she never deposited the amount of electricity. Even the cheques issued by the complainant were dis-honoured. This has caused the increased amount of the arrears for the current years including the arrears for the previous years. Therefore, there is no wrong in the bill Ex.C-1. The same has been issued as per consumption. Request has been made to dismiss the complaint.

9.                The complainant in her complainant has alleged that she was the consumer of the electricity connection under account bearing No.3002979306 and the Ex.C-1 the alleged receipt nowhere shows this account number. The complainant has relied upon Ex.C-3, which was the connection assigned to her, but the same pertains to the period 2015 having account no.J75GT420209M. The receipt Ex.C-1 again nowhere finds this account number. The complainant has relied upon Ex.C-4, the account statement allegedly issued by the OP. This shows the account number BT181085, which has been mentioned in Ex.C-1, but this is the copy though having stamp of OP, but it is not signed or initialed by any of the official of the OP. More so, in this account, the period shown is from 16.03.2013 to 13.11.2013. In the written statement this account number as mentioned in Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-4 has nowhere been referred by the OP. Had the statement of account Ex.C-4 been issued by the OP, the same could have been referred in the written statement. The complainant has not produced on record any bill prior to 01.01.2014 when she allegedly challenged the bill by making the payment of Rs.700/-. From this document Ex.C-1 it cannot be concluded that the bills up till 01.01.2014 were bills of defective meter as alleged by the complainant. However, the OP has produced on record the detail account statement of the complainant which shows that the bills are being sent from 30.12.2013 and the amount due to the complainant is huge amount including the arrears. As per this account statement, two cheques have been shown to be failed. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the complainant challenged the bill vide Ex.C-1 and Ex.OP-2, but since no previous bill has been attached with the receipt or with the complaint, therefore, it cannot be inferred that the meter was defective at the relevant time. ExC-2 is the bill, which has been challenged by the complainant. This pertains to the period from 04.11.2019 to 04.12.2019 and the amount payable has been shown as Rs.4,73,070/-. The arrears of current years have been shown as Rs.89,789/- and previous years Rs.2,70,243/-. If we see the account statement Ex.OP-1, it clears the picture as to how much amount is being deposited by the complainant against the consumption of the electricity and continuously the arrears are being shown. When the complainant challenged the meter, she never opted to adopt the course of law to show that her meter is defective and the same is not being replaced or changed as per the regulations. As per the written statement the meter was changed on 31.08.2014 and the new meter number 6806 was installed, but she did not care to come to the Court even at that time. Now after the lapse of 6 years, she has come to the Court and is challenging the bill, which includes arrears, which pertains to the year 2013-14. So, from all the angles the complainant has failed to establish her case and the complainant is not entitled for the relief and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.              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     

26.10.2022         Member                          Member           President