BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

  Complaint No.430 of  2020

      Date of Instt. 01.12.2020

      Date of Decision: 28.05.2024

Kuldeep Singh aged 65 S/o Satnam Singh r/o W. S. 52 Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. having its Chairman,      Head Office The Mall, Patiala-147001.

2.       S.D.O. PSPCL Ltd. Sub Division, Model House, Boota Pind,           Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. P. S. Dhingra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for the OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant installed one electricity connection into the house of complainant having consumer no.J71GT45061UN and contract number is 3002969270 on the name of his father Late. Satnam Singh. The complainant received electricity bill from the PSPCL through email on 2-6-2020 after the lockdown, but complainant shocked when total outstanding bill mentioned amount of Rs.42170/- and the said bill is on average basis and reading is not mentioned in that bill and meter status mentioned code 'D' meaning thereby meter is faulted. On the other side meter was working properly, after that on 09-06-2020 complainant visited the office of OP No.2 and gave written application about in which arrears of Rs.12000/- mentioned but previous bill was already paid and receipt of that bill was also attached with representation and after that concerned S.D.O marked the letter to the area A. Je namely Darshan Singh, who visited the spot and after the inspection noted the Reading 80055 Kwh which was actual reading of the meter. And gave Remarks Checked and Found meter di Display Bahut light Hai, Reading paran which Mushkal aaundi hai, Meter da MCO vi Karwaya JAVE ji, JO ki Bahut Jaroori hai, meaning thereby display is very Dim due to that reason there is difficulty in reading the units. Change the meter urgently. After the report of JE that bill was rectified and mentioned the reading into the bill upto 80055 from old reading 78993 and finalized amount of bill was Rs.11440/- which was paid on 15-6-2020 previous bill dated 07.03.2020 also attached along with payment receipt. After rectification of the previous bill then next bill was also sent on average basis, again the complainant approached the office of OP No.2 and gave written complaint for mentioning the reading on the bill and after that again employee visited the house of complainant and noted the reading of the meter but bill was not given to the complainant and again new bill generated on average basis. After receiving wrong bills complainant contacted the office OP No.2 for rectifying the bill and requested to replace the meter but OP No.2 delaying the matter from one day to another and narrated that don't worry when the meter will be replaced you will get the bill on actual reading shown on the meter and your whole bill will be adjusted accordingly. After passed 102 days on 22.09.2020 meter was replaced by the concerned office. Moreover OP failed to install new meter within stipulated time as per statuary provisions. At the time of replacement of meter actual reading taken by concerned officer which was 81563 kwh units which has been mentioned on the replacement order. The complainant received the bill after the installation of new meter on 2-11-2020 of Rs.56850/- which was due on 12-11-2020, the complainant was shocked to receive the bill of huge amount as this bill is also on average basis upto the installation on new meter that again complainant visited the office of OP No.2 on 3-11-2020 and gave written representation which was again marked to the JE. Who also mentioned the reading noted at the time of replacement of the meter. But after delaying the matter from one day to another day on 23-11-2020 OP clearly refused to rectify the bill and even they returned the request letter to complainant and told the complainant you have to pay the full Bill amount otherwise Electricity supply will be disconnected. The OPs committed deficiency in service 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 rectify the bill on unit reading basis and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arose against the Complainant to file the present Complainant against the answering OP and the present complaint is infructuous as the bill sent to the complaint is already corrected. In the previous meter, there is no defect in the meter and working of the meter is absolutely fine but display of the mere is light now the complaint is getting the bill as per the actual consumption on 02.11.2020 bill was generated for actual consumption of the consumer which was 871 units, then consumption was recorded on 03-12-2020 which was 444 units then on 04.01.2021 consumption was 447 units then on 29.01.2021 consumption was recorded 331 units. And after settling the accounts consumer paid us surplus that is Rs.34,155/- in advance till 25.01.2021 which will be adjusted in future bills of the consumer. So on this ground only present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint as the connection is not in the name of the complaint. It is further averred that the complainant of the Complainant is not maintainable under the Law, being infructuous and ground is made out for the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of electricity connection number 3002969270 and it is also admitted that admitted that the bill was generated on 02.11.2020 and Rs.34,155/- were received in advance till 25.01.2021, 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 not filed by the complainant. 

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 very minutely.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant is the consumer of electricity connection number 3002969270. In order to prove this fact, he has produced on record the electricity bill Ex.C-1. It has been proved that consumption of units as per this bill is 360 and the total bill was Rs.3820/- and the complainant has made the payment of the same on 09.03.2020, vide Ex.C-2. The complainant has alleged that he received the bill Ex.C-3 showing the bill received for Rs.11,440/-. Perusal of this bill shows, it was on average basis and the meter status was ‘D’. The complainant has proved the letter Ex.C-4, vide which he has made the request to the OPs to correct the bill as he had made all the balance payments and nothing is due, but despite that he again received a bill Ex.C-6 showing the amount Rs.56,850/-. In this bill the arrears have been shown as Rs.42,344/-. Ex.C-11 shows that the bill was for Rs.42,170/- and thereafter the same was corrected and the amount of Rs.11,440/- was mentioned. The complainant has proved Ex.C-4 on which there is a noting dated 10.06.2020 that the display of the meter is very light and it is difficult to take the reading and MCO was recommended. On the basis of this noting, the meter was replaced. Perusal of the bills show that on 04.06.2020 also the meter status was shown as ‘D’ and as per Ex.C-5 MCO, the meter was replaced on 22.09.2020 i.e. after 102 days. As per the Supply Code, the replacement of the meter is to be made within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint, if the meter is found slow, fast, creeping, defective and stuck up meters. In the present case, it has been admitted by the OP that the meter was found defective on 04.06.2020, but the same was changed on 22.09.2020 i.e. after 102 days, which is against the provisions of the Supply Code of the OP. As per the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 57.4, defective meters need to be replaced on priority in preference to meters to be issued for installation against new connections.

7.                The OPs in their written statement have admitted that the bill was generated on 02.11.2020 and Rs.34,155/- were received in advance till 25.01.2021. This fact has been proved from Ex.OP-1 and as per the submission of the OPs, all the bills have been corrected and the complainant is now getting corrected bill. Mr. Manish Thakur, Revenue Accountant gave the statement on 02.01.2024 to the effect that ‘the OPs received an application for correction of Bill. Thereafter, the MCO was done on 22.09.2020. In the meantime, the OPs were waiting for the M.E. Lab report. During this period, the previous consumption was mentioned as arrears, but when the M.E. Lab report came and no defect was found in the meter. Then, the all amount was settled as per the rules of the PSPCL. Now in the present date, nothing is due towards the complainant and no harassment was ever made to the complainant’. So, as per the statement of the Revenue Accountant, the complainant is receiving the correct bill and no defect was found in meter. At present nothing is due towards the complainant. The complainant has sought the relief to rectify the bill, which has already been rectified by the OPs as per the statement of the Revenue Accountant and this fact has not been denied by the complainant also. However, the complainant has suffered harassment because of receiving wrong bills from time and again and visiting the office of the OPs for correction of the bill. He has to suffer mentally also, thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

8.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                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      

28.05.2024         Member                          Member           President