Punjab

Sangrur

CC/208/2016

Rashmi Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Mahesh Satija

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  208

                                                Instituted on:    29.01.2016

                                                Decided on:       22.09.2016

 

Rashmi Sharma aged about 65 yeas widow of Bhagat Ram Sharma, Resident of House No., Gali No.2, Near Civil Hospital, Ram Basti, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, P.S.P.C. Limited, Sub Division, Badrukhan Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

3.     SDO, PSPCL, Sohian Raod, Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Mahesh Satija, Advocate.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Rashmi Sharma, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that husband of the complainant, namely, Shri Bhagat Ram Sharma obtained the electricity connection bearing account number S42RB570618L from the Ops.  It is further averred that Shri Bhagat Ram Sharma died on 27.12.2014 and thereafter the complainant has been using the electricity connection and paying the bills.   The complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 22.1.2016 from the Ops for Rs.87,980/- wherein an amount of Rs.84,850/- has been added on account of sundry charges.  It is further stated that the bill in question is for 464 units.  It is further averred that the complainant approached the Ops for correction of the bill in question, but all in vain.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the disputed bill dated 22.1.2016  and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Ops, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the connection in question is running in the name of Bhagat Ram Sharma. It is further admitted that the bill dated 22.1.2016 for Rs.87,980/- was issued wherein the amount of Rs.84,850/- as sundry charges were added.  Further case of the OPs is that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant became defective and the same  was changed vide MCO number 032/99924 dated 8.5.2013 and the same was effected on 26.9.2013 in the presence of the consumer who signed the same. The reading of the removed meter was not visible at the time of effecting the MCO. Thereafter the removed meter was sent to the ME Laboratory Sangrur vide store challan number 198 dated 23.10.2013 and its reading was fund to be 28762, whereas at the store challan the reading was  mentioned as 14984.  It is stated further that after receiving the report of the ME laboratory, Sangrur the bill for 13778 unit was prepared for Rs.84,850/- and the same were demanded from the complainant accordingly.  It is further averred that the OP number 2 issued notice number 2575 dated 30.12.2013 for making the payment, but he did not make the payment.  It is stated that the demand has rightly been raised against the complainant. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied. 

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of death certificate, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-13 bills and receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of MCO, Ex.OP-2 copy of store challan, Ex.OP-3 copy of notice, Ex.OP-4 copy of half margin note, Ex.OP-5 copy of sundry, Ex.OP-6 copy of consumption data and Ex.OP-7 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits  acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the connection in question is in the name of husband of Shri Bhagat Ram Sharma, who has  died on 27.12.2014, as is evident from the copy of death certificate, produced on record as Ex.C-1, as such, we feel that the complaint of the complainant is fully maintainable by the complainant being the wife of the connection holder.

 

6.             It is also not in dispute that the OPs have raised a demand of Rs.84,850/- on account of sundry charges against the complainant in the bill dated 22.1.2016.  It is also not in dispute that the bill in question is for the consumption of 464 units.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the disputed demand of Rs.84,850/- is without any basis as she never consumed the electricity to such an extent. On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that meter installed in the premises of the complainant became defective and the same was changed through MCO dated 8.5.2013 and the same was effected on 26.9.2013  and the demand is on account of 13778 units which were not charged from the complainant as the reading in the ME laboratory was found to be 28762 units, whereas the complainant was charged upto the reading of 14984 units. As such, it is contended by the learned counsel for the Ops that the demand has rightly been charged against the complainant.

 

7.             We have also perused the written reply, wherein in para number 3 of the written reply it is clearly stated that “on the store challan the reading was mentioned as 14984”, but after receiving the report of the ME laboratory Sangrur the reading was found to be 28762 units, as such the difference of 13778 units was accordingly charges for Rs.84,850/- which is said to be legal one.  But, we are unable to go with the contention of the learned counsel for the Ops that the Ops are entitled to recover the said amount  for 13778 units.  We have very carefully perused the ME laboratory report Ex.OP/2, wherein the reading of the meter is shown to be 14984 at the time of checking, but we failed to understand from where the figure i.e. reading 28762 was taken by the Ops.  Further the Ops have also produced the consumption data of the complainant on record as Ex.OP-6, which clearly show that from January 2011 to July, 2012 the consumption of the complainant was from 169 to 559 units, when the meter of the complainant was working with ‘O’ code.  Further perusal of the consumption data Ex.OP-6 clearly reveals that the reading from September 2012 to July, 2013 was shown as 14984 units, meaning thereby the OPs shown the consumption of 13778 units for the period from September, 2012 to 26.9.2013. 

8.             Further we may mention that it is the duty of the OPs to keep their meter/instrument in working order as the Ops are charging rent of the meter, as is evident from the copy of bill Ex.C-4 wherein the Ops have charged meter rent and further the complainant has already deposited the bills of electricity issued by the OPs from time to time.  It is the own case of the OPs that the meter became defective in the month of September, 2012 and since then the bill was sent on average basis till the changing of the meter, which was replaced only on 26.9.2013.  There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why the meter was not replaced for one year.  Under these circumstances, we find that the Ops have illegally raised a demand of Rs.84,850/- against the complainant on account of sundry charges. In the circumstances of the case, we find it to be a fit case for directing the Ops to overhaul the account of the complainant and to charge the consumption for the period from 9/12 to 9/13 by taking the average of previous six bills.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to withdraw the disputed demand of Rs.84,850/- raised vide bill dated 22.01.2016. We further order the OPs to charge the complainant for the disputed period i.e. from 9/12 to 9/13 by taking the average of previous six months consumption of the complainant and thereafter issue a fresh bill after adjusting the amount already charged in the disputed period from the complainant. Further the Ops are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

 

10.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication.    A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 22, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member