| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR. Complaint No.109 of 2017 Date of Instt. 18.04.2017 Date of Decision: 02.03.2021 Mrs. Sudesh Kapoor of 67 years old, W/o Sh. Manmohan Kapoor, R/o Opposite Devi Talab, Tanda Road, Jalandhar 9814972907 (M). ..........Complainant Versus The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director/Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2. The Asstt. Executive Engineer, Commercial, Mai Hira Gate T-3, Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Maqsudan, Jalandhar – 144008. 3. The Asstt. Executive Engineer, Centralize Billing Cell, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Shakti Sadan, G.T. Road, Jalandhar. ….….. 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 The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein complainant averred that she is having electric connection bearing N.3002976464, (Old No.J74GT740744N) for domestic supply in the name of complainant is installed for 14.200 KW as sanctioned load. All correspondence of complainant used to handle by her husband Manmohan Kapoor. Complainant is/was paying all bills of said electricity connection; OPs are sending wrong, incorrect, illegal bills to complainant since February 2016 of said connection against rules/regulation/instructions 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 02.01.2016 for period 05.12.2015 to 02.01.2016 of Rs.1950/-, electricity meter status as “O” by showing reading as 52217 to 57501 of installed meter and she paid the amount of bill on 07.01.2016 presuming it as correct on due date. Then she received bill dated 03.02.2016 for Rs.2510/- with meter status “N” &“O” for reading from 52217 to 57824 and paid on 09.02.2016. She received bill dated 04.03.2016 for 05.12.2015 to 04.03.2016 for Rs.2030/- showing meter status as “N”& “O” by showing reading from 52217 to 58147 and illegally adjusting Rs.7232/-, she paid on 09.03.2016. OPs again send bill dated 05.04.2016 for 04.03.2016 to 05.04.2016 of Rs.2970/- with meter status as “O” by showing reading from58147 to 58452 and illegally added Rs.883/- she paid on 08.04.2016. She received bill dated 03.05.2016 for period 05.04.2016 to 03.05.2016 of Rs.1510/- payable on 13.05.2016 complainant paid on 10.05.2016. She received next bill dated 06.06.2016 for period 03.05.2016 to 06.06.2016 of Rs.5480/- payable on 16.06.2016 for reading from 58948 to 60189 with meter status as “O” and illegally adjusted Rs.3982/- and paid on 14.06.2016. Further, OPs issued wrong bill dated 08.07.2016 for the period of 06.06.2016 to 08.07.2016 of Rs.750/- payable by 18.07.2016 with status “O” and adjusted Rs.9462/-. OPs sent bill from 01.08.2016 to 02.11.2016 in minus which are not paid being minus bills. Further, Ops sent wrong bill dated 02.12.2016 for 02.11.2016 to 02.12.2016 for Rs.42290/- for reading from 65008 to 65300 by illegally adding Rs.40,290/-. On receipt of bill dated 02.12.2016, she challenged huge amount of Rs.42,890/- and made written representation dated 12.12.2016 and deposited Rs.2,000/- with Rs.8200/- and Rs.250/- on 13.12.2016. But Ops did not consider the representation dated 12.12.2016. OPs again sent wrong bill dated 03.01.2017 for 02.12.2016 to 03.01.2017 for Rs.35,160/- in which Rs.32,715/- illegally added. Complainant receipt of said bill made written representation dated 13.01.2017 and challenged the bill by depositing Rs.5500/-. But did not considered representation dated 12.12.2016 and 13.01.2017 of complainant. Ops failed to settle the dispute of said wrong bills then complainant got served with legal notice dated 25.01.2017 through her counsel to OPs. OPs again issued wrong bill dated 09.02.2017 for Rs.32,314/-, she made other representation on 14.02.2017 and deposit Rs.2026/- but OP-2 refused to accept the said letter. Without settling the dispute of said bill OPs issued bill dated 03.03.23017 for Rs.32570/, she challenged the said bill and deposit Rs.2160/-. Ops sent bill dated 28.03.2017 for Rs.32,630/- and she challenged the said bill and deposit Rs.2,000/-. There is difference in the bills issued by OPs on the spot to complainant and the bills for the same period put up on the website of OPs i.e. 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, is submitted that correct bills was used to be sent as alleged. There was some defect in the Sap System since July, 2015. 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 she remained mum for such a long time. Complainant received (-) bill, due to the fault in the SAP System of OPs. Otherwise bill cannot be minus as there was consumption of the electricity as shown in the bill itself. Mostly bills paid by complainant without raising any objections. Now she 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 02.12.2016 challenged the bill by making written representation dated 02.12.2016 and a sum of Rs.2000/- was deposited. It is denied that representation dated 12.12.2016 and 13.01.2017 not considered. He failed false representation just to create the evidence in his favour. The service of legal notice is not denied. But the same is not correct and based on wrong data and mode of calculation. The complainant is trying to avoid the payment of the bills. No bill was challenged as alleged as required under law. Part payment of bill amount was deposited, which is not legal payment. Nothing was done against the law of land as alleged. Bill was sent after making all adjustments of payment made by complainant. On receipt of bill dated 28.03.2017, she made a representation dated 05.04.2017, but the same is illegal and wrong and without any basis. No excess payment raised. The representative of complainant came and he was attended for 3 to 4 hours. Each and everything was explained to him, but he was having negative attitude and only saying the bill is not correct. Complainant may be put the strict proof of the difference of bills on spot and website. The complainant was directed to supply the copies of receipts of ACD and Meter Security to enable the OPs to check and verify the record available in the office. The complainant was informed that some record of securities is not traceable in the office. But nothing was done by complainant. The Ops is ready to give all the benefits available to complainant as per rules, but the complainant is not cooperating. It is denied that OPs wrongly mentioned ACD security as Rs.3000/- and meter security as Rs.400/- instead of actually deposited. The regular bills are being sent. There was defect in the Sap system. There is no deficiency in service. Other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/-. In order to prove their respective version, the counsel for the parties produced on the file his respective evidence. We have heard the arguments of the parties and also gone through case file carefully. The complainant argued that on the receipt of electricity bill dated 02.01.2016 for period 05.12.2015 to 02.01.2016 of Rs.1950/-, electricity meter status as “O” by showing reading as 52217 to 57501 of installed meter and she paid the amount of bill on 07.01.2016 presuming it as correct on due date. Then she received bill dated 03.02.2016 for Rs.2510/- with meter status “N” &“O” for reading from 52217 to 57824 and paid on 09.02.2016. She received bill dated 04.03.2016 for 05.12.2015 to 04.03.2016 for Rs.2030/- showing meter status as “N”& “O” by showing reading from 52217 to 58147 and illegally adjusting Rs.7232/-, she paid on 09.03.2016. OPs again send bill dated 05.04.2016 for 04.03.2016 to 05.04.2016 of Rs.2970/- with meter status as “O” by showing reading from58147 to 58452 and illegally added Rs.883/- she paid on 08.04.2016. She received bill dated 03.05.2016 for period 05.04.2016 to 03.05.2016 of Rs.1510/- payable on 13.05.2016 complainant paid on 10.05.2016. She received next bill dated 06.06.2016 for period 03.05.2016 to 06.06.2016 of Rs.5480/- payable on 16.06.2016 for reading from 58948 to 60189 with meter status as “O” and illegally adjusted Rs.3982/- and paid on 14.06.2016. Further, OPs issued wrong bill dated 08.07.2016 for the period of 06.06.2016 to 08.07.2016 of Rs.750/- payable by 18.07.2016 with status “O” and adjusted Rs.9462/-. OPs sent bill from 01.08.2016 to 02.11.2016 in minus which are not paid being minus bills. Further, Ops sent wrong bill dated 02.12.2016 for 02.11.2016 to 02.12.2016 for Rs.42290/- for reading from 65008 to 65300 by illegally adding Rs.40,290/-. On receipt of bill dated 02.12.2016, she challenged huge amount of Rs.42,890/- and made written representation dated 12.12.2016 and deposited Rs.2,000/- with Rs.8200/- and Rs.250/- on 13.12.2016. But Ops did not consider the representation dated 12.12.2016. OPs again sent wrong bill dated 03.01.2017 for 02.12.2016 to 03.01.2017 for Rs.35,160/- in which Rs.32,715/- illegally added. Complainant receipt of said bill made written representation dated 13.01.2017 and challenged the bill by depositing Rs.5500/-. But did not considered representation dated 12.12.2016 and 13.01.2017 of complainant. Ops failed to settle the dispute of said wrong bills then complainant got served with legal notice dated 25.01.2017 through her counsel to OPs. OPs again issued wrong bill dated 09.02.2017 for Rs.32,314/-, she made other representation on 14.02.2017 and deposit Rs.2026/- but OP-2 refused to accept the said letter. Without settling the dispute of said bill OPs issued bill dated 03.03.23017 for Rs.32570/, she challenged the said bill and deposit Rs.2160/-. Ops sent bill dated 28.03.2017 for Rs.32,630/- and she challenged the said bill and deposit Rs.2,000/-. There is difference in the bills issued by OPs on the spot to complainant and the bills for the same period put up on the website of OPs i.e. From perusal of above said copies of electricity bills on the record, we are of the opinion that there is huge different 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 March 2017 illegally. OPs admitted in some paras of their written statement that “the Bill was used to be correctly and in minus sent. …… However, there was some defect in the Sap System since July 2015”. Moreover, the OPs are ready to give all benefits available to complainant as per rules….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. OPs admitted that there was a problem in Sap system. This act of OPs proves negligence on their part. If no fault on the part of OPs, why they agreed for problem in Sap system. 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. The OPs should issue electricity bills to complainant as per his consumption. 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 OPs, which is against the rules of PSPCL & Electricity Supply Instruction Manual. OPs time and again sent an exaggerated bill to her. She 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. 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 ... vs Zora 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 in stead 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 in stead of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- in each, compensation of Rs. 5000/- in each is directed to be awarded.” In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, and judgment (Supra), we partly allow 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: 2nd Day of March 2021
(Kuljit Singh) President
(Jyotsna) Member | |
