Punjab

Moga

CC/15/92

sukhdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Balraj Kumar Gupta

03 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                     C.C. No. 92 of 2015

                                                              Instituted on: 20.11.2015

                                                 Decided on: 03.05.2016

 

Sukhdev Singh, aged about 82 years S/o Charanjit Singh, R/o Sodhi Nagar, Zira Road, Moga.

                                                                                                                 ……….   Complainant 

Versus

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Secretary, The Mall,

    Patiala.

 

2. S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., North Sub Division, Moga.

 

3. XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., North Sub Division, Moga.

 

                                                                                                         ………. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Quorum:   Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:      Sh. Balraj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Raj Kumar Goyal, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties.

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal, President)

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) for directing them to set aside the demand of Rs.69,787/- raised by them as sundry charges. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as damages alongwith costs of the present complaint to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant was using electricity vide domestic connection no. F54NA-930041W and has been paying the bills regularly. Opposite party no.1 Corporation can sue and be sued through its Secretary. Opposite parties no.2 & 3 are officer incharge for the locality, in which, the domestic electric connection was installed. The complainant received consumption bill dt. 9.11.2015 of total Rs.79,800/-, in which, opposite parties shown sundry charges of Rs.69,787/-. The complainant immediately inquired the matter from opposite parties, who told the complainant that in the month of August, 2014 they had changed the meter and at that time due to faulty meter there was meter reading of 10928 units in September, 2014, but later on they had corrected the bill and found that the actual consumption was only 1639 units. At that time they had charged the amount for 1639 units from the complainant. The officials of the opposite parties also told the complainant that on account of audit inspection they are demanding charges of remaining 9289 units from the complainant. The complainant told that the said bill of 10928 units was apparently wrong, as the same has already been corrected by opposite parties and the complainant has already deposited the actual consumption charges for 1639 units in September, 2014, then how can the opposite parties claim charges for alleged 9289 units after a gap of more than 15 months, but the opposite parties failed to give any satisfactory reply. The alleged demand of sundry charges of Rs.69,787/- is wrong, illegal, null and void and complainant is not liable to pay the said amount. Complainant made several requests to opposite parties to withdraw the sundry demand of Rs.69,787/- and to get deposit actual consumption charges of Rs.10013, but the opposite parties flatly refused to do so. Due to illegal acts of the opposite parties and due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered huge mental tension, harassment and economic loss. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties no.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct; that the Hon'ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the instant complaint. On merits, it is admitted to be correct to the extent that complainant is the consumer of Electric connection bearing no. NA 93/41. However, the complainant was not paying the actual consumption charges and the disputed amount is due. The complainant has concealed actual facts and has not come with clean hands before this Forum. Actual facts of the case are that due to 'D-Code' old electric meter of the complainant was changed with a new one and at that time reading on the old meter was 14691 units, but the complainant has paid the bill for 5548 units. In this way, the complainant has paid less amount for 9163 units. Thereafter, new meter was installed at 0.1 reading and after consumption the new reading was 1766 units. In this way, the complainant used 1765 units of new meter and thus, he is liable to pay 9163 units plus 1765 units = 10928 units. Due to 'C-Code'  i.e. due to change of meter bill was prepared for 1639 units and the same was paid by complainant, but the complainant is liable to pay the amount for 10928 units (-) 1639 units = 9289 units. The complainant is liable to pay the amount in dispute as pointed out by the Audit Party vide half margin no.496 of 7/2015. The amount paid by the complainant has already been adjusted and a sum of Rs. 69,787/- is due and recoverable from the complainant, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the any of the opposite parties. The demand raised by the opposite parties is legal one. Other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant Sukhdev Singh tendered in evidence his two affidavits Ex. C1 and Ex.C-2 in support of the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record copies of documents Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence. 

5.                In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Mandeep Singh, S.D.O, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Ex.OP- 1,2,3/1 and copies of documents Ex. OP-1,2,3/2 to Ex. OP-1,2,3/7 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                Learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant has a domestic electric connection bearing no. F54NA930041W installed in his residence issued by OPs and has been regularly paying all the electricity bills to Ops and nothing is due towards electricity charges. Complainant received bill dt 9.01.2015 for Rs.79,800/-, in which Rs.69,787/-were charged as sundry charges. It is contended that on enquiry, complainant was told that in August, 2014 meter of complainant was changed and at that time due to fault in meter, there was a reading of 10928 units in September 2014. Said bill was corrected later on and it was found that actual consumption was only 1639 units at that time and they charged  amount for 1639 units. It is further contended that officials of Ops have again raised the demand of for the remaining 9289 units from complainant on account of Audit inspection. Ld counsel for complainant further argued that complainant requested Ops that earlier they made wrong bill of 10928 units and after correction, complainant deposited the charges for 1639 units in September 2014 and now there is no question for raising the demand for remaining balance payment of 9289 units after a gap of 15 months. The complainant made many requests to Ops to withdraw this amount being illegal, but they refused to withdraw this amount and threatened him to disconnect his connection if he failed to deposit it with them. The ops have no right to claim this amount from him. All these acts of Ops amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. He has prayed that Ops may be directed to withdraw the demand of amount in dispute alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 6 and prayed for accepting the present complaint

Denying all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect, ld counsel for Ops argued that there is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. However, they admitted that complainant is their consumer and they issued bill in question to him. Ld counsel for Ops brought before the Forum that due to ‘D-Code’, old electric meter of the complainant was changed with new one and at that time, reading on the old meter was 14691 units, but complainant paid the bill for only 5548 units and thus, complainant has paid less amount. After installation of new meter at 0.1 reading, new consumption reading was 1766 units and in this way, complainant used 1765 units of new meter and therefore, he is liable to pay for 9163 units alongwith 1765 units, total becoming 10,928 units. Due to ‘D code and change of meter, bill for 1639 units was prepared and it was paid by complainant, but complainant is still responsible for making payment of this amount for 10928 units less 1639 units or 9289 units. This amount is pointed out by Audit Party vide half margin no. 496 of 7/2015. It is further argued that amount paid by complainant has already adjusted and a sum of Rs.69,787/-is still due to be paid by complainant and Ops have right to claim and recover this amount from complainant. He has filed false and frivolous complaint against Ops and same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

8.                We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence and record placed on file. The case of the complainant is that he has a domestic electric connection issued by Ops. Though complainant has been regularly paying all the electricity bills and nothing is due towards him, but he received bill dt 9.11.2015 for Rs79,800/-in which amount of Rs69,787/- was added on account of sundry charges. On enquiry from OP, complainant was told that as per audit inspection, this amount is due towards him on account of 9289 units. as per complainant, this demand is illegal and wrong and complainant is not liable to pay for same. In reply, stand of Ops is that due to ‘D-Code’ faulty meter of complainant was changed and at that meter reading was 14,691 units, but complainant paid for only 5548 units and thus, complainant made less  payment for 9163 units. Consumption Reading at newly installed meter came to be for 1765 units and thus, complainant is liable to pay for 9163 units and 1765 units on account of power consumed by him. In September 2014, meter reading was 10928 units and at that time complainant made payment for only 1639 units and payment for remaining units of 9289 is due towards complainant.

9.                On the careful perusal of the file, evidence and arguments of both the parties, the case of the OPs is that they charged the amount in dispute as sundry charges on the basis of Audit party for excess consumption recorded by his old defective meter, which was changed with new one and there is difference between the reading of old meter and bill issued to complainant for the month of September, 2014 on the average basis. Admittedly the old meter of the complainant was defective and due to this reason that meter was changed with new one and bill was sent on average basis.

10.              In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that when the old meter was defective as admitted by opposite parties themselves and not working properly and not recording consumption correctly, then how opposite parties can claim bill for the consumption wrongly recorded by defective meter. So, opposite parties are not entitled to claim the charges for the excess consumption recorded by old defective meter, which was changed by them. So, these acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and present complaint in hand is allowed. Opposite parties are not entitled to recover the amount in question i.e. Rs.69,787/- as sundry charges from the complainant. Opposite parties are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs. 69,787/- from the complainant, which was demanded by them as sundry charges. The complainant has already deposited the said amount with opposite parties vide receipt Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-6 to avoid disconnection of electric connection due to non payment of electricity charges. So, the opposite parties are directed to adjust this amount of Rs.69,787/- in the future bills of the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 03.05.2016

 

                     (Bupinder Kaur)           (Vinod Bala)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

                           Member                     Member                             President