BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.80 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 26.02.2018

      Date of Decision: 22.02.2022

Sita Devi age about 63 years wife of Sh. Parkash Chand Jassal, resident of House No.620, Abadpura, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Sub Division Model Town Commercial, Village Bootan, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)                                         Smt. Jyotsna                              (Member)   

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. S. L. Walia, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. S. K. S. Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for the OP.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj(President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein she has alleged that an electric connection is installed in her house bearing account No.J72MT511543K contract A/c No.3002099714 in the name of Sita Devi/Complainant. That the complainant belongs to scheduled caste community and she is availing the facilities of Punjab Government under WSD scheme and 200 units per month are exempted to the complainant. That from the date of granting the above said facility, the complainant is availing the facility of the above said scheme and also depositing the electric consumption bill with the department exceeding to the above said facility. That in the month of April 2016, the electric meter of the complainant was changed by the department due to induction of digitations meters as the old meters were removed and the new digital meters were installed and all the meters were installed outside the premises collectively. That after affixing the digital electric meter, the meter reading of the previous electric meter was shown in all the bills issued from April 2016 to till date and the status of the meter was shown as F code and the bill was prepared on average basis. Ultimately the complainant used to pay the electricity bill to the department from time to time. There is nothing due and outstanding against the complainant as she has paid all the dues to the department till today. That it is pertinent to mention here that lastly the complainant has received bill for the month of October 2017 for a sum of Rs.2760/- showing the old meter reading 25371 and current meter reading F code and bill has been charged for 716 days, on average basis from 01.11.2015 to 17.10.2017. Hence, the total average consumption calculated is 5212 units and concession given 4773 units. That thereafter the complainant approached the officials of the OP and requested to reconcile the bill once again, but the complainant astonished to know that there is an amount of Rs.8050/- was outstanding against her showing the details as old meter reading 25371 to 26287 i.e. 916 units, new meter reading old 000 to 4387 consumption 4387 and concession of 4640 units is given and the bill for the period from 01.11.2015 to 27.09.2017 i.e. 695 days, which was required to be reconciled. That thereafter the complainant under the compelling circumstances forced to deposit the all three installments, made by the concerned officials of the OP and ultimately, the complainant had deposited all 3 installments with the department under the threat that the concerned officials of the PSPCL may disconnect her above said electric connection at any moment. That the complainant has nothing to do with the above said episode and all the above said errors have been committed at the hands of the officials of the PSPCL, the above said bill is required to be reconciled and the excess amount paid by the complainant is required to be refunded to her. That in case the bill is calculated on average basis then the consumption comes to 12 bi-monthlies and 4800 units are required to be exempted to the complainant. The bill dated 26.10.2017 shows the consumption 5303 units and out of 5303 units exempted units are 4800 and the rest of units are 503 and for 503 units Rs.8050 cannot be charged. The OP has charged the excess amount from the complainant. That on 14.11.2017, the complainant made a representation/notice to the OP, but the OP did not take any action on the said notice and due to the wrongful acts of the OP, the complainant suffered monetary loss, mental tension, agony and harassment and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to refund the excess amount charged by the OP with interest @18% per annum which the complainant had to deposit in order to avoid disconnection of connection and further OP be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation including litigation expenses for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed just to harass the answering OP and just to delay outstanding payment due towards the complainant. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable. The complaint filed by the complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. That the complainant has not approached to the Commission with clean hands and intentionally and deliberately concealed the material facts from the Commission and further submitted that as per the system meter of the consumer was replaced on 17.08.2017 with the reading of New Meter ‘O’ and old meter reading 26287. Meanwhile the bills of the consumer generated from 26.02.2016 to 22.06.2016 on the L & N codes and from 19.08.2016 to 22.10.2017 with ‘F’codes were cancelled and bill was issued on 26.10.2017 for 695 days with new meter consumption 4387 units and old meter consumption 916 units total 5303 units out of which the concession of 4640 units was given to the consumer and as per the rules and regulation and instructions of PSPCL, no further concession is to be given to the consumer. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable as there is not any deficiency in service or any inconvenience and harassment to the complainant. On merits, the factum in regard to installation of the electricity connection in the name of the complainant 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.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.

4.                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith document Ex.OP-1 i.e. copy of bill and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the argument from learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant,very minutely.

6.                The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the meter of the complainant was changed in the month of April 2016 due to the induction of digital meters and the status in the bills from April 2016 till date was shown as ‘F’ Code and the bill was prepared on average basis. The entire payment was made by the complainant. In the bill of October 2017, the amount to be received was shown as Rs.2760/- and old meter reading was 25371 and the current meter reading was ‘F’ Code. The bill was charged for 716 days on average basis from 01.11.2015 to 17.10.2017. When the complainant approached the OP, the amount due towards was shown Rs.8050/- and the complainant was forced to pay the same in three installments. The concession given has not been calculated correctly and request has been made to refund the excess amount charged by the OP.

7.                It has been alleged that the meter of the complainant was replaced on 17.08.2017 with the old meter reading 26287 and the bill was generated from 26.02.2016 to 22.06.2016 on the L & N Code and from 19.08.2016 to 22.10.2017 with ‘F’ Code were cancelled and the bill was issued on 26.10.2017 for 695 days with new meter consumption of 4387 units and old meter consumption 916 units total 5303 units, out of which the concession of 4640 units was given. There is no excess amount has ever been received. The bill has rightly been issued. Request has been made to dismiss the complaint.

8.                Ex.C-1 is the bill, which shows the period of 01.11.2015 to 17.10.2017, average consumption has been shown as 5212 units for 716 days and concession of units has been given as 4773. The amount of Rs.2760/- has been demanded to be payable for 439 units. Ex.C-2 is the bill showing the meter reading date of 01.11.2015 to 27.09.2017 showing the period of 695 days. This bill was issued for the consumption of 4387 units, out of which 4640 units concession was given and the meter reading was showing the consumption from 25371 old status and 26287 new status. Total units as per allegations of the OPs 5303 units were found, whereas in Ex.C-2, the consumption has been shown as 4387 units. In Ex.C-1, the due date has been shown as 01.11.2017 for payment by cash and 30.10.2017 payment by cheque, whereas in Ex.C-2, the due payment has been shown to be payable upto 10.11.2017 by cash and by cheque 08.11.2017. If we compare both the bills Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, both relate to same period.The consumption in Ex.C-1 is shown as 5212 unit and for less period, the consumption has been alleged in Ex.C-2 as 5303 units. In Ex.C-1, the bill has been issued on average basis and in Ex.C-2 the status of the meter has been shows as ‘O’. No new status or old status has been mentioned in Ex.C-2 and the amount has been claimed for Rs.8050/-. As per the allegations of the complainant, the amount of Rs.8050/- was paid in three installments. The contention of the OP in written statement is that the bill was generated from 26.02.2016 to 26.06.2016 on the L & N codes and from 19.08.2016 to 22.10.2017 with ‘F’codes were cancelled, but there is no document to show that the bills issued with ‘L’& ‘N’ code and ‘F’ codes were cancelled and the bill was issued for 695 days on 26.10.2017, but even in Ex.C-2 there is no mention of any fact as alleged by the OP in their written statement. Ex.C-1 was issued on 17.10.2017 and as per bill Ex.C-2, the bill was issued on 26.10.2017. The due date for payment of Ex.C-1 was 30.10.2017 by cheque and 01.11.2017 by cash, meaning thereby that a few days prior to the last date shown in Ex.C-1. Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 show that the amount of Ex.C-2 has been paid in three installments. No notice or memo has been served upon the complainant to show that the bill earlier generated was cancelled and new bill is being issued. As per the Supply Code and Regulations 2014, it is mandatory upon the OP to serve a notice/memo to the consumer if there is any change or they are to make recovery of any arrear by giving the details of the amount in the said memo alongwith the detail of rules and regulations, but admittedly no such memo or notice was ever served upon the complainant regarding the cancellation of the previous bill. Even otherwise if the contention of the OP is considered to be true, even then the concessional units in Ex.C-1 were of 4773 upto 30.10.2017 and the average consumption has been shown as 5212 units. In Ex.C-2 the reading date has been mentioned as 01.11.2015 to 27.09.2017, whereas Ex.C-1 is from 01.11.2015 to 17.10.2017. The average consumption in Ex.C-2 is 4387/5303 units and in Ex.C-1 is 5212 units. The concessional units in Ex.C-1 are 4773 units, whereas in Ex.C-2 the concessional units are 4640. Ex.C-1 is the bill for Rs.2760/-, whereas the bill Ex.C-2 is for Rs.8050/-. Both the bills Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 relates to the same period. The bill Ex.C-1 is for one month more only, but the difference between the amount of both the bills is too much. The complainant has made the payment of bill Ex.C-2 in three installments as per receipt Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5. From the bills issued to the complainant, it is proved that the bill has not been issued after taking due diligence and the OPs have not acted in accordance with the instructions. The act of the OPs is the negligent act and accordingly, the bills Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 are set aside and OPs are directed to refund the excess amount deposited by the complainant in order to avoid disconnecting the connection with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant 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.

9.                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    22.02.2022         Member                        Member           President