BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.446 of 2016

Date of Instt. 25.10.2016

Date of Decision: 04.04.2018

Rahul Bhanot S/o Late Sh. Nasib Chand, aged 36 Years, R/o House No.1044, Mohalla Chopra, Shahkot, District Jalandhar, 9888120652 (M).

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2. The Astt. Executive Engineer, Shahkot Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Shahkot, District Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Arun K Walia, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. KL Dua, Adv Counsel for OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OPs are providing electricity services to the general public for consideration through out Punjab and more particularly within the Jalandhar District. The complainant is the resident of House No.1044, Mohalla Chopra, Shahkot, where an electricity connection bearing A/c No.X44DT230201H for Domestic Supply in the name of Nasib Chand is installed for 4.50 KW and the complainant is the actual user of the electricity from the said electricity connection as such, the complainant is a consumer. The complainant is using the electricity from the said electricity connection for the last more than 15 years being the son of said Sh. Nasib Chand and paying the bills of the said electricity connection. The complainant on the receipt of last electricity bill bearing No.37 dated 29.08.2016 for the period 25.06.2016 to 29.08.2016 for Rs.94,980/- payable by 13.09.2016 and after seeing the said bill, the complainant astonished and shocked to see such huge amount of Rs.94,980/-. On receipt of the above mentioned bill, the complainant approached the office of the OP No.2 and inquired about the above mentioned bill, but non has given any satisfactory reply to the complainant with regards to such exorbitant amount of Rs.94,980/-. The complainant failed to understand that in the above said bill, why an amount of Rs.85,238/- is charged, when there is no correspondence of any sort with the complainant or in the name of Nasib Chand.

2. That to avoid any inconvenience, the complainant has paid the current bill amount of Rs.10,000/- in excess of Rs.30/- to be adjusted in future current bill online vide receipt No.103607784 dated 06.09.2016 showing online deposit of Rs.10,000/- against the above mentioned electricity bill. The complainant by writing a Speed Post Letter dated 07.09.2016 and send the same through registered letter on 08.09.2016 to the OP No.2 also demanded the detail of said amount being excess charged and send the copy of above mentioned receipt of online payment of Rs.10,000/-. But till now no response has been heard from the OP No.2. When the complainant did not heard and received any response from the OP No.2 with regards to the a representation dated 07.09.2016 of the complainant, then the complainant got served a legal notice dated 19.09.2016 through his counsel Sh. Arun K Walia, Advocate, but no response of the said legal notice has ever given by the OP, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP and further submitted that the electricity meter is installed out side the premises of the complainant and no real time display is installed in the premises of the complainant with regard to the above mentioned electricity connection and as such, there is violation of Rules and Meter Regulations and Electricity Act, 2003 rather the OP has mentally harassed the complainant by sending a such huge amount, which gave cause of action to file the present complaint and accordingly, this complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, to the complainant for harassment, inconvenience, financial loss and deficiency in service as well as negligence and unfair trade practice.

3. Notice of the compliant was given to the OPs, who appeared through its counsel and filed joint reply and contested the compliant by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint and further averred that the complaint is barred by his act and conduct of the complainant and even the complainant has not got transferred the connection in his name after the death of his father Nasib Chand and as such, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OPs and as such, he has no locus-standi to file the present complaint, which is false and frivolous. It is further averred that the complainant has not challenged the meter or checking the same in the ME Lab. The loss has been detected by the audit party while checking the account of the complainant. They thoroughly checked the account and came to the conclusion that the loss is being caused to the OPs on account of the less reporting of the consumption of the electricity, so, the meter was ordered to be removed and the account of the compensation was overhauled as per the rules and regulations of the Power Com and after overhauling the account, the amount in question has been correctly raised and further alleged that the complainant is not the consumer as defined in the 'Consumer Protection Act', so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this sole score. On merits, the factum in regard to installation of electricity meter in the house of the complainant is admitted, but it is alleged that the said connection stands in the name of Nasib Chand and not in the name of complainant and as such, the complainant is not a consumer of the OP. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-26 and closed the evidence.

5. Similarly, counsel for OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After taking into consideration the entire facts as elaborated on the file, which itself reveals that an electricity Connection bearing A/c No.X44DT230201H installed in the premises of the complainant, but in the name of his father i.e. Nasib Chand and continuously the electricity charges has been paid by the complainant or prior to that his father, regarding that the complainant has brought on the file some electricity bills Ex.C-1, Ex.C-9, Ex.C-12, Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-23, Ex.C-25 and Ex.C-26 and these factum have been also deposed by the complainant by filing his own affidavit Ex.CA.

8. The case of the complainant to the extent that an electricity connection is still running in the house, where complainant is residing and continuously consumption bills were paid by the consumer, the question remains only whether the complainant is consumer or not because the OP raised the objection that the electricity connection mainly stands in the name of Nasib Chand and after the death of Nasib Chand, it is necessary for the complainant to get it transfer in his own name, but he did not to do so for the best known reason and as such, the complainant is not a consumer and therefore, this complaint is not maintainable and in support of this version, the counsel for the OP referred Para No.11.6.3 and part of the above Para i.e. (f) and (e) of the Supply Code and Regulations 2007. We have gone through the aforesaid Supply Code and Regulations 2007 and relevant para 11.6.3 and Sub-Part (f) and (e) and find that in the event of the death of consumer, the heirs may apply for the connection to be transferred in the name of one of the heirs, the word used in this provision is “may” not “shall”. So, it is not mandatory and further duty casted upon the Electricity Board by Sub-Para (f) that if the connection is not got transferred within six months from the date of death by the consumer, then it is the duty of the Electricity Board to serve a notice by giving 15 days time to get the connection transfer and failing which the same is liable to be disconnected, in the instant case, if the complainant has not got transferred the connection in his own name, then duty casted upon the Electricity Board to give a notice by giving 15 days time to get it transfer in his own name.

9. For the argument sake, we can consider that the OP came to know regarding death of the original consumer i.e. father of the complainant, on the day of receipt of the notice and copy of the instant complaint, wherein categorically mentioned that the father of the complainant has expired, but even after receiving the copy of complaint, the OP miserably failed to give a notice to the complainant, which is mandatory. So, we find that this argument of learned counsel for the complainant having no force because the complainant being the beneficiary of his deceased father is fully entitled to file the present complaint being a consumer.

10. Further the plea taken by the OP is that the electric meter of the complainant was replaced with an other meter, on the ground that the less reporting of the consumption of electricity has been given by the Meter Reader and due to that the audit party checked the account of the complainant and came to conclusion that the loss is being caused to the OP on account of less reporting of the consumption of electricity and accordingly, meter was ordered to be removed and the same was sent to ME Lab and account of the complainant was overhauled as per the rules and regulations and after overhauling the account, the amount in question has been correctly raised, which is mentioned in the disputed electricity bill dated 29.08.2016, which is Ex.C-2 for amounting to Rs.94,980/-.

11. We have considered this aspect of the OP and find that there is no directly and indirectly fault on the part of the complainant because the lesser consumption of the electricity meter was reported by the employee of the OP, not by the complainant and moreover, the meter of the complainant has been installed outside the premises and if so then, it is the duty and responsibility of the OP, for the safety of the consumer meter and if the meter is installed outside and real time display unit installed in the premises of the consumer, then responsibility shifted upon the complainant. The above observation is extracted from the notification of the electricity board issued by the Central Electricity Authority dated 17.03.2006 and further meter of the complainant is replaced, then as per rules and regulations of the Electricity Board, it is required to be replaced and sealed in the presence of the complainant and the same be taken into custody through memo, which must be signed by the consumer and further the sealed meter shall have to send to the ME Lab for mechanical test and said test must be conducted in the presence of the complainant, but all the aforesaid rules were not followed by the OP, if so then, the complainant is not liable for any such act of the OP, which is done in the absence of the complainant and moreover, it is not in the notice of the complainant that his meter was ever replaced, so, every thing is done by the Field Staff as well as Account Branch and Higher Official in-connivance with each other just to save the skin of their own employee i.e. Meter Reader, who reported the lesser consumption.

12. Apart from above, if any arrear or excess amount is to be imposed upon the consumer, then the same should be informed to the consumer by serving a special notice, but the said arrear cannot be included directly in the consumption electricity bill. In support of above observation, we like to refer Para No.30.1.2, Chapter VII of the Supply Code and Regulations 2007.

13. We have also gone through the bills previous to the disputed bill i.e. for the period March, 2016 to 1 May, 2016, the said bill is dated 1 May, 2016, the same is Ex.C-25 and the consumption shown in this bill is Rs.435/- and total amount payable by the complainant as electricity consumption charges Rs.2850/- and further an other bill dated 25.06.2016 for the circle period 1 May, 2016 to 25 June, 2016 and total consumption charges have been shown Rs.912/-, the payable amount of the consumption charge is Rs.6460/- and after aforesaid bill, the OP issued the disputed bill dated 29.08.2016 for amounting to Rs.94,980/-, which included Rs.85,238/- as sundry charges, this sundry charges is an arrear of previous consumption as alleged by the OP, but if there was no arrear on 25.06.2016 as per reported in the bill Ex.C-26, then where from this huge amount come, which seems to be wrongly and illegally calculated by the OPs, for which the complainant is not liable to pay the same and further the complainant has already paid the actual consumption of the said period i.e. 25.06.2016 to 29.08.2016, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and as such, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

14. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and accordingly, the same is partly accepted and bill dated 29.08.2016 for amounting to Rs.94,980/- is illegal and same is set-aside, out of that the actually consumption charges of Rs.10,000/- has been already paid and further the OPs are not liable to recover the amount of said bill. The complainant will pay the further actually consumption charges regularly. The OPs have also caused mental tension, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant and as such, the OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month 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.

15. 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 Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

04.04.2018 Member President