Complaint No: 43 of 2021.
Date of Institution: 02.02.2021.
Date of order:12.10.2023.
Vijay Kumar Puri aged 65 years S/o Sh. Bhagwat Sarup resident of 21/258 Purian Mohalla, Batala District Gurdaspur. Pin Code - 143505 and Mobile No. 7888464015.
.....Complainant.
VERSUS
1. The Secretary, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Patiala. Pin Code number - 147001 and Mobile Number - 9646111050.
2. XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, City Division, Batala. Pin Code - 143505 and Mobile Number - 9646120733.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd,South - Division, Batala. Pin Code - 143505 and Mobile Number - 9646120733.
…..............Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Inderjit Vaid, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
Vijay Kumar Puri, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against P.S.P.C.Ltd. and others (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the actual consumer, holder and owner of the connection bearing Consumer No. G 13GF730404 M in dispute and the same has been installed outside the premises of the complainant situated at Purian Mohalla, Batala District Gurdaspur and its load is 3.5 kilowatt. It was submitted by the complainant that he has been paying the electric connection charges regularly and no amount is due and payable by the complainant to the OP’s against consumption charges. It was further submitted that suddenly some fault occurred in the previous meter which has been installed at his residence and it was replaced on 03.09.2019 under MCO No. 100008900253 dated 03.09.2019 with effect from 08.10.2019. It was further pleaded that the complainant challenged the said meter on 01.01.2020 and it was replaced under MCO No. 10009531390 dated 01.01.2020 effected on 02.01.2020. The report of the laboratory of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. was that my meter is OK, which was received by him by post vide memo No. 444 dated 18.03.2020 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Commercial Sub Division, Batala. Further that on 31.12.2019, he has received bill of Rs.5990/- of 4525 unit’s burn through my above said meter i.e. total units 741. It was alleged that as the reading of the above said electric meter was 4525 on 30.12.2019 and after three days i.e. on 02.01.2020 the reading of the said meter was shown 5194 units. It means in two or three days consumption has been shown 669 units which is wrong and is not it acceptable. It was further submitted by the complainant that he has two sons and a daughter and all are married and do their job and their wives also do job. Rajan Puri son of the complainant is living with him and runs City Heart Computer. It was further submitted that during the day time mostly the house of the complainant remains locked. His other son namely Uttam Raj Puri is having different electric connection in his portion and he has been paying the electricity used charges regularly and no amount is due and payable by him. It was further alleged that the previous reading of the meter installed at the home of the complainant can be seen that how much units are consummated and now how much units has been consumed in the present bill. Further that the bill is corrected as the report of the Laboratory regarding the meter is OK then how it can be believed that the complainant has consumed 669 units in 2-3 days. It was further alleged that the act of the opposite parties to demand a huge amount from the complainant vide an electricity bill amounting to Rs.14,020/- is against the law and instructions of the opposite parties. The complainant has deposited the said amount of Rs,14,020/- to save the disconnection of the electric meter vide two separate receipts dated 16.03.2020 and the 2nd receipt will be produced later on after getting from the office of the opposite parties. It was further alleged that he has requested the opposite parties tocorrect his said electricity bill many times but the opposite parties refused to do so. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties he has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that the complaint of the complainant be accepted with heavy cost to the opposite parties in the interest of law, justice and fair play and also the opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of deposited by the complainant in excess with the office of the opposite party No.3.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has estopped by his own act and conduct and that the complainant has guilty of suppression of material and vital facts from the Hon'ble Commission and as such, the complainant has not come to the Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. It was pleaded that on the request of the complainant, the OP’s installed new electric meter at the premises of the complainant after removing the old electric meter vide MCO No.100009531390 dated 01.01.2020 Effective on 03.01.2020 showing the reading on the old removed meter was 5194 in the presence of the complainant. Thereafter, old removed meter was packed in the card box in the presence of the complainant, which was later on sent to ME Lab Batala vide Store Challan No. 58 dated 25.02.2020 and thereafter, the said old removed packed meter was checked by ME Lab Batala in the presence of the complainant on 25.02.2020 and found OK by ME Lab Batala on 25.02.2020. It was further pleaded that the meter was checked in the presence of the complainant on 25.02.2020, but, an intimation to this fact was also sent to the complainant vide Memo No. 444 dated 18.03.2020, which is also received and admitted by the complainant in the present complaint. It was further pleaded that the complainant is paying the regular consumption charges upto date and the amount which has been charged by the OP’s from the complainant pertains to actual consumption charges and the same has been deposited/paid against proper receipt un-conditionally and without any protest. Hence, the complainant is estoppel by his own act and conduct as the complainant is well aware with the fact the amount which the complainant has deposited is the actual consumption charges of electric energy duly consumed by him. It was further pleaded that the story as propounded by the complainant is false, frivolous, baseless, imaginary, concocted and without any force and afterthought.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Vijay Kumar Puri, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Harjit Singh, (S.D.O/AEE P.S.P.C.Ltd, Commercial Sub - Division Batala, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OPW-1/A along with other documents as Ex.OP-1to3/1 to Ex.OP-1to3/10.
6. Rejoinder filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
9. From the overall circumstances as enumerated in the respective pleadings of the parties it reveals that there was dispute of electricity bill dated 02.03.2020 amounting of Rs.14,020/- as Ex.C-1, which is issued by the opposite parties against the electric connection of the complainant bearing A/c No.13GF 730404 M.
10. It has been alleged by the complainant that this bill was issued to him against the law because opposite parties have added the amount for consumption of 669 units which is for two days only, as per meter reading detail placed at Ex.C-3.
11. Opposite parties in their written reply denied all the allegations and claimed that the electricity bill in question was as per actual consumption of electricity by the complainant. Further it was pleaded that the meter of this connection was challenged by the complainant and it was declared as OK in report of ME Lab and 669 units was charged on the basis of last reading of meter. Opposite parties have also placed on record the copies of the electricity bill dated 30.12.2019, 02.03.2020 as Ex.OP-7 along with meter reading details as Ex.OP-5.
12. It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that their normal consumption of electricity varies from 125 units to 741 units for two months which is clear from the consumption history at the bottom of the bills and meter reading details at Ex.C-1.
13. As per evidences placed on record by the opposite parties and the complainant as Ex.OP-7 and Ex.C-1 there is difference of amount of this disputed bill but one thing is common that is the addition of 669 units of the electricity consumption. It is the fact that the said meter was challenged by the complainant as per Ex.OP-6 and opposite parties get it checked from ME Lab as per Ex.OP-2/3 after the replacement of the meter vide device replacement order as Ex.OP-1.
14. The working of meter was declared as OK as per ME Lab report at Ex.OP-2/3. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties that the last reading of the previous meter was 5194 as per Ex.OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 and previous meter reading as per bill dated 30.12.2019 as Ex.OP-8 was 4525. Hence, the difference of 669 units was charged in the disputed bill dated 02.03.2020 which is genuine.
15. On-going through the evidence put by the opposite parties it is seen that date of meter reading on previous bill dated 30.12.2019 (Ex.OP-8) wherein the reading was shown as 4525 units and meter reading on the device replacement order was 5194 units (Ex.OP-1) which was recorded on 03.01.2020. This clearly shows that there is consumption of 669 units in 3 days only. Normal consumption of electricity of this connection varies from 125 units to 741 units in two months as evident from copies of electricity bill placed on record. Hence, the consumption of 669 units merely in three days for sanctioned load of 3.5 KW does not seem to be in order. Further that the opposite parties have not justified this much consumption with cogent evidences.
16. Therefore, as a sequel of above discussions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the considered opinion that charging of 669 units in the disputed bill dated 02.03.2020 is not justified at all. As this disputed bill has already been deposited by the complainant; hence, the amount deposited for 669 units is refundable / adjustable to the complainant.
17. In view of the above, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.3 is hereby directed to rectify the disputed electricity bill dated 02.03.2020 by excluding the amount charged for 669 units. Further the amount already deposited by the complainant against 669 units be refunded / adjusted in future bills within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the orders. No order as to cost.
18. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.
19. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Oct. 12, 2023 Member
YP.
