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.3002225389 was installed at her shop since a long back. The complainant was running a tuition centre in that premises for her livelihood and was paying the electricity consumption bills regularly against the receipts as and when received and nothing was due against the complainant except the present disputed bill. The status of the last consumption history shows that the consumption of the complainant on the said connection never exceeded 1067 units in last six billing months. However, the complainant has received the bill dated 28.04.2018 vide which the opposite parties raised a demand of Rs.66,290/- for the period from 01.03.2018 to 28.04.2018 without explaining any reason of such exorbitant consumption showing 7580 units. It is further alleged that 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. After receiving the impugned bill, the complainant approached the officials of the opposite parties to know about such exorbitant consumption bill and to correct the same, but the officials of opposite parties refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant and made a threat that they will disconnect the electricity supply in case the impugned bill is not paid. However, the claimed bill is very excessive and is contrary to all previous bills. Even in the disputed bill itself, the last cycle average is shown as 600, 600, 700, 700, 453 and 1067 units of last one year, but the opposite parties have wrongly sent the impugned bill showing the consumption of 7580 units and now they are wrongly enforcing the recovery of the disputed bill inspite of the repeated requests of the complainant. 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.66,290/- raised vide bill dated 28.04.2018 on the basis of unexplained consumption of 7580 units. 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 admitted correct to the extent that the complainant is consumer of electric connection no.3002225389 and Opposite Party No.1 issued bill under reference to the complainant in which a demand of Rs.44,920/- has been raised from the complainant on the basis of consumption on the meter. The complainant is well within knowledge that she has consumed the electricity to that extent but only to block the public money, she has filed the present complaint. After receiving the bill under reference Rajesh Bajaj husband of the complainant came to the office of opposite parties and at that time, he was fully convinced and even he admitted there that in connivance with old meter reader, the complainant used to show less reading by greasing the palm of the said meter reader. Thereafter, the new meter reader visited the spot and prepared the consumption bill with the electronic machine in his presence and handed over the same to him and on his admission, the opposite parties has replied him that the bill is correct one as per reading and there is no fault of any office and the complainant can challenge the meter if they want to do so and at that time, said Rajesh Bajaj requested the opposite parties that the complainant will pay the said amount in a short period in two instalments, but after that due to some ill advice and malafide intention, the complainant has filed the present complaint which is totally false and frivolous. The complainant has filed the present complaint only to save her skin and only to cover up her wrongful act as there is tuition centre running in the said premises from morning to evening and how is it possible that in such a situation the complainant used to consume 10 units per day. As per new meter, actual reading is clear consumption of 381 units for 14 days. 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 her case, the complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and copies documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4.
4. On the other hand alongwith written version, the Opposite Parties placed on record the affidavit of Sh.Sukhdeep Singh, SDO Ex.OPs-1 and copy of demand note for device replacement order Ex.OPs-2.
5. We have heard the attorney of the complainant and ld. counsel for the Opposite Parties and also perused the written arguments placed on record by the Opposite Parties and have carefully 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. 3002225389 was installed at the shop of the complainant since a long back in which the complainant was running a tuition centre for her livelihood and was paying the electricity consumption bills regularly against the receipts as and when received and nothing was due against the complainant except the present disputed bill and hence the Complainant is ‘consumer’ of the Opposite Parties as required under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The attorney of the Complainant further contended that the complainant has received the bill dated 28.04.2018 vide which the opposite parties raised a demand of Rs.66,290/- for the period from 01.03.2018 to 28.04.2018 without explaining any reason of such exorbitant consumption showing 7580 units. However, the status of the last consumption history as shown in the disputed bill itself makes it clear that the last cycle average is shown as 600, 600, 700, 700, 453 and 1067 units of last one year which clearly proves that the consumption of the complainant on the said connection never exceeded 1067 units in last six billing months. Even Further contended that 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. After receiving the impugned bill, the complainant approached the officials of the opposite parties to know about such exorbitant consumption bill and to correct the same, but the officials of opposite parties refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the attorney of the Complainant on the ground that admittedly the complainant is a ‘consumer’ of electric connection no.3002225389 and the Opposite Parties issued bill under reference to the complainant in which the impugned demand has been raised from the complainant on the basis of consumption on the meter. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties further contended that after receiving the bill under reference, Rajesh Bajaj husband of the complainant visited the office of opposite parties and at that time, he was fully convinced and even he admitted there that in connivance with old meter reader, the complainant used to show less reading by greasing the palm of the said meter reader. Thereafter, the new meter reader visited the spot and prepared the consumption bill with the electronic machine in his presence and handed over the same to him and on his admission, the opposite parties has replied him that the bill is correct one as per reading and there is no fault of any office and the complainant can challenge the meter if they want to do so and at that time, said Rajesh Bajaj requested the opposite parties that the complainant will pay the said amount in a short period in two instalments, but after that due to some ill advice and malafide intention, the complainant has filed the present complaint which is totally false and frivolous. But however, we are not convinced with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties that in connivance with old meter reader, the complainant used to show less reading by greasing the palm of the said meter reader. First of all, the meter reader is the responsible official of the Opposite Parties and for the sake of arguments, if said employee commits such type of the forgery or fraud with the department in connivance with any consumer, then what action has been taken by the Opposite Parties against him and why not any enquiry has been made in this regard or why not any FIR/ DDR has been registered by the Opposite Parties against said defaulting officials who have suffered great financial loss to the Opposite Parties by doing so. Perusal of the record shows that not even a single iota of evidence has been produced by the Opposite Parties in this regard. It appears that it is a concocted story of the officials of the Opposite Parties and we are not convinced with the aforesaid concocted foolish story of the Opposite Parties. In this way, the amount raised by the Opposite Parties vide impugned bill appears to be based on the exorbitant consumption/ excessive billing than the normal consumption of the Complainant.
8. Moreover, the Consumer Fora has fullest jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to excessive billing in case the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice, as per law laid down in case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and another vs. M.D. Imtiyaz-IV (2014) CPJ- 25 (Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). So, certainly this Commission has jurisdiction to decide the matter in question, particularly when the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice as discussed hereinafter.
9. Regulation 21.5.1 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 (as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Reg.97 dated November 5, 2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette(Extra) dated November 5, 2014) provides that account of the consumer, whose meter on testing found to be beyond the limits of prescribed accuracy, shall be overhauled and the electricity charges for all categories of consumers shall be computed in accordance with the said test results for a period not exceeding six months immediately preceding the date of test, in case meter has been tested at site to the satisfaction of the consumer or replacement of inaccurate meter, whichever is later. In the instant case, the consumption bill Ex.C2 dated 28.04.2018 shows that the impugned exorbitant consumption is relating to the billing period 1.3.2018 to 28.04.2018 (58 days). Furthermore, the status of the last consumption history as shown in the disputed bill (Ex.C2) makes it clear that the last cycle average remains as 600, 600, 700, 700, 453 and 1067 units of last one year which clearly proves that the consumption of the complainant on the said connection never exceeded 1067 units in last six billing months.
10. Regulation 21.5.2 of Electricity Supply Code of 2014 (supra) provides that the overhauling of the billing for period of six months will be on the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year and in case, the said consumption for corresponding period not available, then average monthly consumption of previous six months during which meter was functional shall be adjudged for overhauling of the accounts and as such, certainly violation of regulation 21.5.2 of rules and regulations 2015 referred above also committed in this case.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the demand of Rs.66,290/- raised by the Opposite Parties vide bill dated 28.04.2018 (Ex.C2) from the Complainant is set aside and quashed being violative of rules and regulations and principles of natural justice. However, the Opposite Parties are at liberty to overhaul the account of the Complainant by taking the billing period of six months on the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year and in case, the said consumption for corresponding period is not available, then average monthly consumption of previous six months of the disputed bill shall be adjudged for overhauling of the account of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) to the Complainant on account of harassment, mental tension and litigation expenses. The Opposite Parties are also directed to adjust or refund the amount, if any, deposited by the Complainant against the disputed bill with the Opposite Parties during the pendancy of the present complaint. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. 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 duty at District Consumer Commission, Bathinda as well as Faridkot. There is only one working day in a week when the quorum of this Commission remains complete.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 22.01.2021.
