BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.322 of 2017

Date of Instt. 04.09.2017

Date of Decision: 02.03.2021

Mr. Ashwani Kumar of 58 years old S/o Sh.Des Raj, R/o 7, Harbans Nagar, Jalandhar 9417623360 (M).

..........Complainant

Versus

1. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director/Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2. The Asstt. Executive Engineer, Commercial, Model Town Sub Division, Commercial Unit No.5, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Adarsh Nagar, Jalandhar – 144001.

3. The Asstt. Executive Engineer, Centralize Billing Cell, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Sadan, G.T. Road, Jalandhar – 144001.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:

Sh. Kuljit Singh, President

Smt. Jyotsna, Member

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant : Sh. Arun K.Walia, Advocate

For OPs : Sh. K. L. Dua, Advocate

Order

Kuljit Singh, President

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein complainant averred that he is having electric connection bearing No.3001539105, (Old No.J75BT380078A) for domestic supply in the name of complainant for 8.200 KW as sanctioned load and electricity meter of said connection is installed outside the house of complainant and no display unit is installed inside the house. Complainant is/was paying all bills of said electricity connection; OPs are sending wrong, incorrect, illegal bills to complainant since January 2016 of said connection against rules/regulation/ instruction of electricity supply instruction Manual, Supply code, Meter Regulations, Standard of Performance Regulations, Schedule of General Charges, Applicable Tariff Orders, Electricity Act 2003 etc as applicable to OPs. Complainant on receipt of wrong bill dated 23.11.2015 for period 23.09.2015 to 23.11.2015 of Rs.8080/-, electricity meter status as “L” by showing old reading as 106830 of installed meter and he paid the amount of bill on 08.12.2015 presuming it as correct on due date. Then he received bill dated 12.01.2016 for Rs.400/- with meter status “O” for reading from 106830 to 108011 and paid on 05.02.2016. OP illegally not adjusted the whole amount of bill dated 23.11.2015 in bill dated 12.01.2016. He received bill dated 09.03.2016 for 12.01.2016 to 09.03.2016 for Rs.5730/- showing meter status as “F” (Meter Pharek He) by showing reading as 108011 and new reading as 340 and complainant paid Rs.5826/-. OPs again sent bill dated 11.05.2016 for 09.03.2016 to 11.05.2016 of Rs.3970/- with meter status as “F” by showing reading as 108829 and New reading as 0 calculating bill for 561 units and illegally adjusted only Rs.5826/- by Arrears and charged Rs.5832/- by showing arrears. He received bill dated 10.07.2016 for period 11.05.2016 to 10.07.2016 of Rs.12400/- payable on 23.07.2016 and thereafter Rs.12540/- and he paid Rs.12540/- of this bill on 03.09.2016. He received next bill dated 11.09.2016 for period 10.07.2016 to 11.09.2016 of Rs.22370/- payable on 24.09.2016 by cheque and Rs.26.09.2016 by cash with meter status as “F” and illegally charged Rs.12397/-. Further, OP issued wrong bill dated 09.11.2016 for the period of 11.09.2016 to 09.11.2016 of Rs.18730/- payable by 22.11.2016/2411.2016 and thereafter Rs.18873/- and illegal charges Rs.9904/-. OP put on its website wrong bill dated 09.11.2016 for period of 11.09.2016 to 09.11.2016 of Rs.18730/-. OPs sent wrong bills from March 2016 to November 2016 showing meter status as “F” means difference in installed meter particulars. OPs issued wrong bill dated 10.01.2017 for 12.01.2016 to 10.01.2017 of Rs.53740/- payable by 23.01.2017/25.01.2017 thereafter Rs.54578/- with meter status as ‘C” (Meter changed) showing old reading as 1 and new reading as 7908 by calculating the bill for 7907 units of changed meter and illegally adjusted Rs.17213/- and charged Rs.300/- as Misc. showing arrears by showing date of change of meter as 08.12.2016. On receipt of bill dated 10.01.2017, he challenged the bill dated 10.01.2017 by making a written representation dated 22.02.2017 and deposited Rs.27289/- being 50% of bill amount and Rs.250/- as bill challenged fee and Rs.450/- as meter challenge fee. But Ops did not consider the representation dated 22.02.2017 then at last on 08.05.2017, he made other representation and in order to reduce financial burden send draft of Rs.5500/- as advance payment towards electricity current consumption charges and requested OP-2 to settle the said billing dispute. But OPs not settled the dispute and again issued wrong bill dated 09.05.2017 for 08.03.2017 to 09.05.2017 for Rs.40,660/- payable by 22.05.2017/24.05.2017 for reading from 8518 to 9515 and uploaded said bill on website for Rs.35,250/-. Ops despite several written representation did not settled the dispute, then he made written representation dated 18.05.2017 and paid Rs.11,000/- as advance payment toward current energy charges. Then Ops issued bill dated July 2017 for 09.05.2017 to 11.07.2017 for Rs.33070/- payable by 24.07.2017/26.07.2017 and uploaded same bill on website for Rs.33,400/-. The Ops wrongly mentioned ACD Rs.540/- and Meter Security Deposit as Rs.100/- instead of actually deposited amount of ACD and meter security for getting said connection and its extension of load. Lastly prayer has been made that OPs be directed to pay Rs.99,000/- in all terms of money to complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment due to deficiency in service.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arisen to complainant; complaint is misuse of process of this commission; complainant is barred by his act and conduct; false and frivolous complaint has been filed. On merits, installation of electricity connection with sanctioned load of 8.200 KW is admitted. It is clarified that as all the electricity bills were in respect of electricity consumer and were correct so the same were paid by complainant without raising any objection. It is denied that wrong bills sent to complainant. If the bills were wrong then why the complainant made payment of bills and why he remained mum for such a long time. The bill was not correct and there was some mistake in the machine or in the computer. Mostly bills paid by complainant without raising any objections. Now he is barred to challenge the same which has been paid without any sort of objection. The correct status and correct meter number has been incorporated in the bill. It is admitted that on receipt of wrong, incorrect and illegal bill dated 10.01.2017 challenged the bill by making written representation dated 22.02.2017 received in office of OP-2 and deposited Rs.27289/- being 50% of bill amount and Rs.250/- as bill challenge fee and Rs.450/- as meter challenge fee. It is admitted that then the complainant made other representation and in order to reduce financial burden send a draft of Rs.5500/- as advance payment towards electricity current consumption charges and requested the OP-2 to settle the dispute and OP-2 issued a receipt for the same. It is also admitted complainant made written representation dated 18.05.2017 against wrong incorrect illegal electricity bill dated 09.05.2017 to OP-2 and paid Rs.11,000/- as advance payment and OP-2 issued receipt for the same. It is denied that there is huge difference in the bills of said connection for same period uploaded on website. It is also denied that OPs have shown wrong ACD as Rs.540/- and meter Security as Rs.100/-. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service. Other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

3. In order to prove their respective version, the counsel for the parties produced on the file his respective evidence.

4. We have heard the arguments of the parties and also gone through case file carefully.

5. The complainant argued that on the receipt of electricity wrong bill dated 23.11.2015 for period 23.09.2015 to 23.11.2015 of Rs.8080/-, electricity meter status as “L” by showing old reading as 106830 of installed meter and he paid the amount of bill on 08.12.2015 presuming it as correct on due date. Then he also received bill dated 12.01.2016 for Rs.400/- with meter status “O” for reading from 106830 to 108011 and paid on 05.02.2016. OP illegally not adjusted the whole amount of bill dated 23.11.2015 in bill dated 12.01.2016. He received bill dated 09.03.2016 for 12.01.2016 to 09.03.2016 for Rs.5730/- showing meter status as “F” (Meter Pharek He) by showing reading as 108011 and new reading as 340 and complainant paid Rs.5826/-. OPs again send bill dated 11.05.2016 for 09.03.2016 to 11.05.2016 of Rs.3970/- with meter status as “F” by showing reading as 108829 and New reading as 0 calculating bill for 561 units and illegally adjusted only Rs.5826/- by Arrears and charged Rs.5832/- by showing arrears. He received bill dated 10.07.2016 for period 11.05.2016 to 10.07.2016 of Rs.12400/- payable on 23.07.2016 and thereafter Rs.12540/- and he complainant paid Rs.12540/- of this bill on 03.09.2016. He received next bill dated 11.09.2016 for period 10.07.2016 to 11.09.2016 of Rs.22370/- payable on 24.09.2016 by cheque and Rs.26.09.2016 by cash with meter status as “F” and illegally charged Rs.12397/-. Further, OP issued wrong bill dated 09.11.2016 for the period of 11.09.2016 to 09.11.2016 of Rs.18730/- payable by 22.11.2016/2411.2016 and thereafter Rs.18873/- and illegal charges Rs.9904/-. OP put on its website wrong bill dated 09.11.2016 for period of 11.09.2016 to 09.11.2016 of Rs.18730/-. OPs sent wrong bills from March 2016 to November 2016 showing meter status as “F” means difference in installed meter particulars. OPs issued wrong bill dated 10.01.2017 for 12.01.2016 to 10.01.2017 of Rs.53740/- payable by 23.01.2017/25.01.2017 thereafter Rs.54578/- with meter status as ‘C” (Meter changed) showing old reading as 1 and new reading as 7908 by calculating the bill for 7907 units of changed meter and illegally adjusted Rs.17213/- and charged Rs.300/- as Misc. showing arrears by showing date of change of meter as 08.12.2016. On receipt of bill dated 10.01.2017, he challenged the bill dated 10.01.2017 by making a written representation dated 22.02.2017 and deposited Rs.27289/- being 50% of bill amount and Rs.250/- as bill challenged fee and Rs.450/- as meter challenge fee. But Ops did not consider the representation dated 22.02.2017 then at last on 08.05.2017, he made other representation and in order to reduce financial burden send draft of Rs.5500/- as advance payment towards electricity current consumption charges and requested OP-2 to settle the said billing dispute. But OPs not settled the dispute and again issued wrong bill dated 09.05.2017 for 08.03.2017 to 09.05.2017 for Rs.40,660/- payable by 22.05.2017/24.05.2017 for reading from 8518 to 9515 and uploaded said bill on website for Rs.35,250/-. Ops despite several written representation did not settle the dispute, then he made written representation dated 18.05.2017 and paid Rs.11,000/- as advance payment toward current energy charges. Then Ops issued bill dated July 2017 for 09.05.2017 to 11.07.2017 for Rs.33070/- payable by 24.07.2017/26.07.2017 and uploaded same bill on website for Rs.33,400/-. The OPs wrongly mentioned ACD Rs.540/- and Meter Security Deposit as Rs.100/- instead of actually deposited amount of ACD and meter security for getting said connection and its extension of load. The complainant has argued on the said bill and representation and deposit of fee etc. Ex.C-4 to C-30.

6. From perusal of above said copies of electricity bills on the record, we are of the opinion that there is huge difference in the bills issued by OPs to the complainant. OPs without settling the dispute of previous bills sent another bills on average consumption not on consumption basis. OPs neither mentioning the ACD and meter security on the bills for giving interest on the said ACD and meter security as deposited by complainant with Ops up to July 2017 illegally. OPs admitted in para no.6 of their written statement that “the Bill was not correct and there was some mistake in the Machine or in the computer. “From perusal of above said admission of OPs, it is clear that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice attributed on the part of OPs. One side OPs admitted that there was a problem in machine or in the computer. This act of OPs proves negligence on their part. If no fault on the part of OPs, they why they agree for problem in machine or in the computer.

7. The main question of controversy involved in this case is that the demand of excess bill of OPs is genuine or not? From perusal of entire bills issued to complainant by OPs, it is crystal clear that the OPs issued excess bills issued to complainant as per average basis or on difference basis but not as per consumption consumed by him. OPs are adamant to charge excess money unlawfully from the complainant, which is against rules and regulations of PSPCL.

8. The OPs should issue electricity bills to complainant as per his consumption consumed by him. The complainant approached office of OPs various times in this regard but OPs failed to do so. It is bounden duty of the OPs to issue the electricity bills to complainant as per his actual consumption, but this practice was not done by OP, which is against the rules of PSPCL & Electricity Supply Instruction Manual. OPs time and again sent an exaggerated bill to him. He requested OPs many times in this regard but OPs failed to do so. Further, the Ops have failed to produce on record any action taken upon written request made by complainant and also deposit requisite fee, charges etc. As such, an adverse inference drawn against Ops and the OPs are liable for the relief claimed as prayed by complainant in this complaint.

9. We placed reliance on judgment dated 11.08.2005, passed in Appeal (civil) 4910-4981 of 2005 of Hon’ble Apex Court titled asPunjab State Electricity Board ... vsZora Singh & Ors decided on 11 August, 2005 vide which its ordered that ………….. Keeping in view the said fact as also the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice shall be sub-served if the directions issued by the National Commission is modified to the extent that instead and place of interest at the rate of 12% per annum, the Appellants are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum and instead of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- in each, compensation of Rs. 5000/- in each is directed to be awarded.”

10. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, and judgment (Supra), we partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and OPs are directed to issue correct bills in future as per consumption consumed by complainant and OPs further directed to adjust excess amount deposited by complainant with them in future consumption bills. Further, the Ops are directed to mention correct ACD and meter security of electricity connection in dispute and by paying interest on it @9% P.A. and provide all benefit available for complainant, as per rules, as prayed for. The OPs have no right to keep and misappropriate the public money. It must go back to the public. We, therefore, order that the OPs will deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/-, the estimate rough amount, with the legal aid account of this Commission. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

2^nd Day of March 2021

(Kuljit Singh)

President

(Jyotsna)

Member