Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that an electric connection bearing account no.3002917500 (Old No.F24GT240303K) is installed at his residential premises since long back and he has been paying the electricity consumption bills regularly against the receipts as and when received and nothing is due against him except the present disputed bill. Further alleges that the consumption of the Complainant never exceeded 617units as per consumption data of last 12 billing months. But the Complainant stunned to received the exorbitant bill amounting to Rs.22,040/- showing 2676 units for 27 days i.e. for the period 07.07.2018 to 03.08.2018 without explaining any reason. The Complainant never used the electricity to such extent nor there was any such occasion or function in the premises of the Complainant to use such exorbitant consumption. However, the Complainant has already paid the consumption bill for the said disputed period i.e. 07.07.2018 to 03.08.2018 for 27 days for 188 units for Rs.1680/-. Further alleges that after receiving the disputed bill dated 04.08.2018 for Rs.22,040/-, the Complainant also received another bill dated 03.09.2018 for Rs.23220/- in which the arrears of previous bill is shown. Moreover, no separate notice, if any recovery was due against the Complainant was sent by the Opposite Parties as required under the Act. On the basis of the alleged demand, the opposite parties are bent upon to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant. The opposite parties have no right to charge the impugned amount and to disconnect the supply because all the previous bills upto date have been paid. In case, the opposite parties succeeded in their malafide motives and disconnected the electricity supply due to non payment of the alleged illegal demand, then the complainant would suffer an irreparable loss which could not be compensated lateron in any way. Repeated requests have been made by the complainant to the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal demand and not to indulge the complainant into any litigation, but opposite parties refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Due to the aforesaid act and conduct and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and financial loss. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To set aside and quash the illegal demand of opposite parties of Rs.22,040/- raised vide bill dated 04.08.2018 and thereafter the addition of the said amount as arrears in the further bill dated 03.09.2018.
- Further opposite parties may also be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.5000/- as costs of complaint.
- Further the Opposite Parties may be directed not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant due to non payment of the impugned amount till the final adjudication of the present dispute.
- And any other relief may kindly be granted as this Commission may deem fit and proper.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is estopped to file the present complaint by her own act and conduct; that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that the Complainant is having connection in question having sanction load of 10.320 KW. Actually, earlier the bill dated 04.08.2018 was sent to the Complainant for 188 units due to “Energy Variation above 300% as P.Code” and the said bill was from 02.06.2018 to 03.08.2018 on average basis while the actual reading was old 2080 new 4756= 2676 units and the bill for 2676 units was issued to the Complainant by subtracting amount of 188 units. Since the connected load was more than 10 KW and the bill was accordingly issued to the Complainant on monthly basis. Moreover, there is SAP system of Opposite Parties corporation and if there is variation as per that SAP system, then the bill has to be issued on P-Code. In this case, the same has been done by the Opposite Parties as per rules as the actual consumption is 2676 units of two months and the same is payable by the consumer. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special costs has been made.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and copies of the documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Keshav Kumar RA Ex.OPs1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs2 and Ex.OPs3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the complainant and ld. counsel for the Opposite Parties and also gone through the evidence on record.
6. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that an electric connection bearing account no.3002917500 (Old No.F24GT240303K) is installed at his residential premises and he has been paying the electricity consumption bills. The contention of the Complainant is that his consumption never exceeded 617 units as per consumption data of last 12 billing months, but he received the exorbitant bill amounting to Rs.22,040/- showing 2676 units for 27 days i.e. for the period 07.07.2018 to 03.08.2018 without explaining any reason. The Complainant never used the electricity to such extent nor there was any such occasion or function in the premises of the Complainant to use such exorbitant consumption. However, the Complainant has already paid the consumption bill for the said disputed period i.e. 07.07.2018 to 03.08.2018 for 27 days for 188 units for Rs.1680/-. Further contended that after receiving the disputed bill dated 04.08.2018 for Rs.22,040/-, the Complainant also received another bill dated 03.09.2018 for Rs.23220/- in which the arrears of previous bill is shown. Now on the basis of the alleged demand, the opposite parties are bent upon to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant. The opposite parties have no right to charge the impugned amount and to disconnect the supply because all the previous bills upto date has been paid. In case, the opposite parties succeeded in their malafide motives and disconnected the electricity supply due to non payment of the alleged illegal demand, then the complainant would suffer an irreparable loss which could not be compensated lateron in any way. Repeated requests have been made by the complainant to the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal demand and not to indulge the complainant into any litigation, but opposite parties refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Due to the aforesaid act and conduct and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and loss.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the Complainant on the ground that Complainant is having connection in question having sanction load of 10.320 KW. Actually, earlier the bill dated 04.08.2018 was sent to the Complainant for 188 units due to “Energy Variation above 300% as P.Code” and the said bill was from 02.06.2018 to 03.08.2018 on average basis while the actual reading was old 2080 new 4756= 2676 units and the bill for 2676 units was issued to the Complainant by subtracting amount of 188 units. Since the connected load was more than 10 KW and the bill was accordingly issued to the Complainant on monthly basis. Moreover, there is SAP system of Opposite Parties corporation and if there is variation as per that SAP system, then the bill has to be issued on P-Code. In this case, the same has been done by the Opposite Parties as per rules as the actual consumption is 2676 units of two months and the same is payable by the consumer. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. But however, we are not convinced with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have sent such exorbitant bill to the Complainant on the ground that earlier the bill dated 04.08.2018 was sent to the Complainant for 188 units due to “Energy Variation above 300% as P.Code” and the said bill was from 02.06.2018 to 03.08.2018 on average basis while the actual reading was old 2080 new 4756= 2676 units and the bill for 2676 units was issued to the Complainant by subtracting amount of 188 units.
8. But however, the plea of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties are claiming the exorbitant amount from him under the garb of overhauling the account and hence, the demand raised by the Opposite Parties is altogether illegal, unjust, void at law and is liable to be set aside. As per Regulation 21.5.2 under the Head Defective (Other than inaccurate)/ Dead/ Burnt/ Stolen Meters) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2014 (Upto 4th amendment), the accounts of a consumer shall be overhauled/ billed for the period meter remained defective/ dead stop subject to maximum period of six months and the procedure for overhauling the account of the consumer shall be on the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year. In case the consumption of corresponding period of the previous year is not available, the average monthly consumption of previous six months during which the meter was functional, shall be adopted for overhauling of accounts. If neither the consumption of corresponding period of previous year nor for the last six months is available then average of the consumption for the period the meter worked correctly during the last six months shall be taken for overhauling the account of the consumer.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the demand of Rs.22,040/- raised by the Opposite Parties vide bill dated 04.08.2018 (Ex.C5) from the Complainant is set aside. However, the Opposite Parties are at liberty to charge the Complainant for the months of 02/2018 to 08/2018 by taking the average consumption of corresponding period of previous year. In case the consumption of corresponding period of the previous year is not available, then the average monthly consumption of previous six months during which the meter was functional, shall be adopted for overhauling of accounts. If neither the consumption of corresponding period of previous year nor for the last six months is available then average of the consumption for the period the meter worked correctly during the last six months shall be taken for overhauling the account of the consumer. However, the Complainant shall continue to pay the consumption charges regularly without any default in future as per actual consumption. The Opposite Parties are also directed to adjust the amount so deposited during this disputed period while overhauling the account of the Complainant. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the two Whole Time Members in this Commission since 15.09.2018. Moreover, the President of this Commission is doing additional duties at District Consumer Commission, Faridkot. There is only one working day in a week when the quorum of this Commission remains complete.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 20.08.2021.
