BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.53 of 2019

       Date of Instt. 25.02.2019

       Date of Decision:06.12.2022

Nirmal Kaur w/o S. Darshan Singh aged about 65 years r/o H. No.61, Ujala Nagar, Basti Sheikh, 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-I, Boota Pind, Jalandhar 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 the Complainant.              

       Sh. D. R. Seth, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that in the year 2012, the complainant retired as a nursing sister from Health Department, Punjab. In the year 2014, the complainant came to the present address to live alongwith her family. The complainant has taken domestic supply electricity connection from the OPs under account bearing no.30030226025. The complainant had regularly been paying energy consumption bills to the OPs till 06.06.2018. In fact, in the year 2018, the OPs issued last bill on 26.05.2015 for an amount of Rs.960/- to the complainant and the complainant made the payment of the same vide receipt dated 06.06.2018. After that the OPs did not raise any monthly consumption bill to the complainant. In this regard, the complainant sent his younger son to the office of OP No.2 complaining non-supply of regular energy consumption bill but of no avail. All of sudden to the astonishment of the complainant, on 21.01.2019, the OPs issued a consumption bill amounting Rs.1,41,150/- to the complainant. As per the contents of the said bill, the same was required to be paid by cheque by 01.02.2019. On receiving the said bill, the complainant sent her younger son to the OP No.2 to know about the reason of raising such a huge bill. To this, the OPs consented to look into the matter. The complainant did not deposit the said amount with the OPs and the discussions were going on with the OP No.2. Now, the OPs have issued an energy consumption bill dated 22.02.2019 to be paid by 11.03.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,98,231/-. The said bill was a bolt from blue for the complainant. On enquiring from the OP No.2, it was revealed that the said bill pertain to consumption charges, sundry charges and arrears of the current financial year. The OP No.2 was approached by the complainant and she requested the OP No.2 to provide a separate detail of the entire breakup of sundry charges, which were included in the impugned bill dated 22.02.2019. To this, the OP No.2 refused to do so and 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 inflated bill regular energy consumption bill dated 22.02.2019 amounting Rs.1,98,231/- without issuing a supplementary bill and their threatening to disconnect the supply of electricity to 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 the regular energy consumption bill dated 22.02.2019 amounting Rs.1,98,231/- and charge the complainant on the basis of correct consumption of electricity. Further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the electric charges leveled are on account of actual units of electric energy consumed by the complainant/consumer on account of overhauling the account of the complainant by the Audit Department of the respondents vide Audit Report No.19, dated, 18.6.2018 for a sum of Rs.1,23,970/- which contained as sundry charges. As such the charges levelled are rightly and legally charged as per rules, regulations and instructions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., and there is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of OPs. It is further averred that the complainant does not have any cause of action against the respondents. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further averred that the complainant is stopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The complainant does not have any locus-standi to file the present complaint. This Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint as the complainant should have approached the Dispute Settlement Committee a Competent Authority of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., to get her dispute settled/decided. On merits, the factum with regard to bill dated 21.01.2019 for Rs.1,41,150/- on account of actual consumption of electricity by the complainant and bill dated 22.02.2019 for a sum of Rs.1,98,231/- on account of actual consumption of electricity which including the sundry charges of Rs.1,23,268/- plus current bill charges, 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 written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant as well as case file very minutely.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant is customer and user of domestic supply electricity connection No.30030226025. The complainant has proved on record the bills Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 showing that till 26.05.2018, the entire amount of electricity bill was paid by the complainant and as per this document Ex.C-1 no arrear has been shown. As per the submission of the complainant Ex.C-1 the OP never sent any bill for the consumption of the electricity by the complainant and the complainant approached the OPs regarding the non-supply of regular energy consumption bill, but his request was not paid any heed. The complainant has proved on record the impugned bills Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4 showing the consumption bill amount of Rs.1,41,150/- and Rs.1,98,231/-. Perusal of these bills show that these bills are for the period from 30.09.2018 to 21.01.2019 and the type of the bill has been shown as ‘normal’ on 30.09.2018 and as ‘average’ on 21.01.2019 in Ex.C-3 and in Ex.C-4 the bill again has been shown from 30.09.2018 to 21.02.2019. Again in this bill, the sundry charges of Rs.1,23,268/- as in Ex.C-3, have been shown. In this bill, the meter reading has been given from 1011 to 7025 for one month i.e. from 21.01.2019 to 21.02.2019.

7.                The OP has alleged that the bills are of actual consumption of electricity by the complainant as per their record. It has been alleged by the complainant that the meter of the complainant was changed vide meter change order dated 17.10.2017 as the meter was found to be defective on 25.03.2017 and the charges sought are on account of actual units of electricity consumed by the complainant as per overhauling the account of the consumer. The load of the complainant was checked on 20.04.2019 and was found to be using excess load of 8.133 KW as sanctioned loan was 1 KW. The OPs have proved on record the report of checking Ex.OP-1 which shows the consumption of the units from 15.06.2017 onwards. On the bottom of this document, it has been specifically mentioned that the current meter must be checked as there is a drastic fall in the consumption in 05/2018, but there is no document to show that the meter was ever got checked thereafter. Ex.OP-2 has been proved showing the reading of the meter and Ex.OP-3 is the change of meter as alleged by the OPs in the written statement. Ex.OP-4 shows the reading and there is a cutting against the meter number 468750. Ex.OP-6 is the letter showing that the meter was checked and the same was found having excess load than of sanctioned load.

8.                Ex.C-1, which relates to the period from 31.03.2018, Ex.C5 which relates to the period from 02.12.2017 to 31.03.2018, nowhere shows that there was a change in meter or the meter was found defective. The working and the status of the meter was found normal as per Ex.C-3 and suddenly it turned over to be an average. There is no document on the file to show that the meter was ever found defective from the period i.e. 25.03.2017. If it was changed on 17.10.2017, then there is no question of over hauling the meter again when the reading was showing normal. The complainant has produced on record the notification of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission, in which there is a Column 21.3.6, which shows that ‘the distribution licensee shall have the right to test any consumer meter and related equipment, either at site or in the laboratory, if there is a reasonable doubt about its accuracy and the consumer shall co-operate with the distribution licensee in conducting the test. The consumer shall have the right to be present during such testing. A copy of the test results indicating the accuracy of the meter shall be provided to the consumer.’ As per this condition, the testing of the meter should be done in the laboratory in the presence of the consumer and the copy of the test result indicating the accuracy of the meter shall be provided to the consumer.

9.                As per Regulation 93.1 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual (updated till 30.06.2017), in case the consumer is billed on account of any finding of the Internal Auditor, as alleged by the OPs in the present case, a separate bill shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. So, as per Regulation 93.1 and as per the Regulation, the separate bills are to be issued by the OPs if any difference of units is found or if any dues relating to previous months are found as per Audit Report, but the OPs have not issued any separate bill to the complainant nor there is any reference of the report of the Auditor or any inspection report or examination report in impugned bills Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4. So, the OPs have violated the conditions of its Regulations nor the accuracy of the electricity meter has ever been tested by the OP in any Laboratory nor the consent of the complainant was ever obtained by the Audit Party. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

10.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and regular energy consumption bill dated 22.02.2019 amounting to Rs.1,98,231/- is illegal and is hereby set-aside. The OPs are directed to send the bill on the basis of actual consumption by following the Regulations of 93.1. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment 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.

11.              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     

06.12.2022         Member                          Member           President