BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.251 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 26.07.2021

      Date of Decision: 28.10.2022

Mrs. Vandana w/o Sh. Pawan Kumar c/o 614-L, Mall Road, Model Town, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2.       The S.E., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Shakti Sadan,          Jalandhar.

3.       The Sr. Xen, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division      Model Town, Jalandhar.

4.       The SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division          Model Town, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Vishal Pruthi, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.                       Sh. K. L. Dua, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 to 4.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is running her bakery under the name and style of “Parveen Baker’s Ville” in the property no.614-L, Mall Road, Model Town, Jalandhar for running her livelihood. The complainant is the consumer having electricity connection in her property on 16.12.2019. The said connection was given vide A/c No.3005210849 and the meter number installed bearing no.X0919806 having line CTR 100/5 and MTR ratio 200/5. The concerned office of PSPCL had started issuing wrong bills showing wrong meter number as X0918738 instead of X0919806. The said bills also shows wrong MTR ratio as 100/5 instead of 200/5. On account of this wrong figures, excessive and exorbitant bills much more than that of the actual consumption have been being issued from the very beginning till the bill dated 22.09.2020 having bill No.53003929495. The said grave error has been on account of the gross negligence on the part of the concerned officials of PSPCL will fall within the ambit of deficiency in service and also it amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant had been requesting the XEN and JE. Model Town Sub Division, Jalandhar to the effect that the department is issuing wrong excessive bills much more than that of the actual consumption. The XEN and JE had been assuring complainant that he has already reported the matter to the concerned authorities and the bills would be corrected/rectified and also told complainant to pay the bills and the department would adjust the excess payment in future bills. Relying upon the assurances of the XEN and JE, complainant continued paying the amount under the impugned bills, but when in the month of October 2020, the XEN and JE showed his inability to get the wrong undone, consequently complainant moved an application to the SDO, PSPCL. Sub Division Model Town, Jalandhar to get her grievance redressed. On the representation of complainant, the authorities directed the concerned official to check and report vide its order dated 19.10.2020. Consequently, after investigation on the complaint of complainant, the authorities admitted their mistake and order for the correction of the record pertaining to the aforesaid account. Thereafter, the concerned authorities issued a bill dated 02.12.2020 having bill no.1003006000 regarding MTR Ratio 200/5 but although the reading of the bill was taken by the department was not correct. The said bill was paid by complainant on 13.12.2020. The complainant again make a representation to the SDO, PSPCL, Sub Division Model Town, Jalandhar regarding refund of the excessive payment made by the complainant, by rectifying the previous incorrect bills w.e.f. the first bill upto the bill dated 22.09.2020. The complainant issued a notice dated 20.05.2021 calling upon the OPs to rectify the above referred impugned bills issued by PSPCL. The complainant has also suffered grave mental harassment at the hands of the OPs 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 refund the excess amount illegally recovered by the OPs amounting to Rs.6,37,793/-  to the complainant. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on the amount illegally recovered by the PSPCL from the complainant as well as on Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. compensation till the date of its realization.

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 connection of the complainant is commercial and the same is being used for commercial purpose i.e. for running the business of Bakery and other Food Products at large scale and it is not for her livelihood, so the present complaint is not maintainable in this Commission and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. It is further averred that the complainant has claimed the specific amount of Rs.6,37,793/- toward the refund of the amount and Rs.5,00,000/- on account of damages. So the present complaint is required to be filed in the Civil Court, after affixing the proper court fee. It is further averred that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present false and frivolous complaint in this Commission. The account of the complainant has been checked and the necessary action is being taken. The complaint is pre mature. On merits, the factum with regard to installation of the electricity connection in the property 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 very minutely.

6.                The complainant has filed the present complaint that he is consumer having electric connection with account no.3005210849 and the meter no.X0919806. It has been alleged by the complainant that the OP had started issuing wrong bills mentioning the wrong meter number as X0918738 instead of X0919806 and the bills also show MTR ratio as 100/5 instead of 200/5. This gave the wrong figure of the bill of the complainant. He has proved on record the representations made to the OPs Ex.C-1, in which he has specifically mentioned the fact that he is receiving excess bill of account no.3005210849. Mentioning all the facts, he has also produced on record the bills Ex.C-3 & Ex/C-4 and the details of the bill showing the bill amount Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 are the calculations.

7.                The OP in his written statement as alleged that the complaint is not maintainable as he is running her bakery and the connection is commercial one, but this contention is not tenable as in the complaint in para No.1 only, the complainant has specifically alleged that she is running her bakery under the name and style of “Parveen Baker’s Ville” for running her livelihood. As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act that any person who is using the purchased/hired goods or services exclusively for the purpose of earning a livelihood would be included within the meaning of a consumer within the Act.

8.                It has further been admitted by the OP in para no.6 that the connection of the complainant was checked by the AEE vide LCR no.62 dated 22.10.2020 and it was found that the CT of the meter was 100/5 and MTR was of 200/5 and the multiplier was used to be charged to the complainant was ‘ONE’, whereas it should have been ‘HALF’ i.e. 0.5. It has further been admitted that on the basis of the report, the calculation was made and it was found that the complainant has been charged excessive amount of Rs.5,99,891/-. Ex.OP-1 is the letter written by the SE to Chief Engineer regarding the refund of the excess amount in the case of the complainant. Similar are the letters Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3, which clearly depicts that the amount of Rs.5,99,891/- has been received in excess from the complainant regarding the wrong calculation and wrong charging. From these documents, it is also evident that the case has already been sent to the Refund Committee on 02.12.2020 for refund of excess money charged and the correspondence is till 28.07.2021, but till today, the refund of the amount of Rs.5,99,891/- has not been made to the complainant. This is negligence and unfair trade practice, so the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.

9.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.5,99,891/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. 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.

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     

28.10.2022         Member                          Member           President