DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

                                                                           PATIALA                                               

                                                                  Consumer Complaint No.436  dt.22/11/2017                                                                                                                                                           Decided on:       17/09/2020

Nirpal Singh S/o Sh. Surjit Singh aged about 67 years, Resident of 184-G, Gobind Nagar, Patiala.

  …...Complainant

                             Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Head Office: The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman-cum- Managing Director.

2.       The Assistant Executive Engineer East (Commercial) Sub Division, Model Town, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala.

                                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties 

                                    Complaint under Section 11 to 14 of the                                                                                                                                                Consumer  Protection  Act, 1986.  

QUORUM

                                Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President                                                                                                                                                          Sh. Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member 

ARGUED BY:

Sh. Mayank Malhotra Adv. counsel for complainant.

                                     Sh. H. S. Dhaliwal Adv. counsel for the OPs.

 ORDER

                                   JASJIT  SINGH BHINDER, PRESIDENT

 1.                        Nirpal Singh complainant  has filed this complaint under Section 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,  (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party namely  Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ( hereinafter referred to as the OP).

2.                Brief facts of the case is that complainant is using the electricity connection bearing A/c No.3000066943 with sanctioned load of 12.56KW under NRS category, meter of which is installed outside the premises of the complainant on the electricity pole along with other meters since long. It is alleged that complainant received a bill dt.20/08/2015 for an amount of Rs.26,890/- which was paid by the complainant on 31/8/2015 vide receipt No.210005931947. Complainant was shocked to receive a bill dt.23/10/2015 for an amount of Rs.1,05,640/- which  include an amount of Rs.51,379/- (28,404/- + 20,771/- + 2204/- ) as arrears of  current year and Rs.51,928/-  (45360/- + 5897/-+ 671/-)  as current  Electricity charges.  Complainant approached the Ops to rectify the bill dt.23/10/2015 but the OPs flatly refused to entertain the genuine request of the complainant. Complainant challenged the bill dt.23/10/2015 vide his complaint No.253 of 30/10/2015 and the same has been quashed by the Hon’ble Forum vide order dt.17/08/2017.

                   It is alleged that  again complainant received a notice bearing memo No.3096 dt.7/11/2017 along with supplementary bill vide which amount of Rs.51,379/- has been illegally charged which has already been quashed by the Hon’ble Forum vide its order dt.17/8/2017. Ops failed to comply with the provisions of regulation No.30.1.2 of the Electricity Supply Code of 2014.  It is also alleged that amount is arrear of the previous meter which was burnt and was changed by the OPs vide their MCO dt.13/5/2015. It is  submitted that the meter was not packed and got signed from the complainant which is mandatory as per the regulations of the OPs. The  meter was not checked in ME Lab in the presence of the complainant. The OPs have charged the amount in the bill dt.23/10/2015. It is alleged that OPs in demanding arrears in the bill dt.07/11/2017 without any actual outstanding towards the complainant falls under unfair trade practice. The action of the Ops also falls under the deficiency in services by issuing the bill dt.7/11/2017 without verifying the facts.

                   With this background of facts, the complainant has filed the present complaint with the prayer  to set aside the impugned memo & Bill dt.07/11/2017 whereby an amount of Rs.51,379/- has been demanded, to restrain the Ops from disconnecting the electric connection of the premises of the complainant and to award compensation of Rs.30,000/-.

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version. OPs have taken preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is alleged that complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Forum with clean hand and has intentionally concealed the material information. On merits it is admitted that an electric connection bearing A/C No.3000066943 was installed in the premises with sanctioned load of 12.56KW under NRS Category.  It is alleged that the meter of the complainant got burnt and it was changed on 13/6/2015 and at the time of removal of said meter the reading of the same was 18516 units. Thereafter the bill of the complainant was generated on 17/6/2015 i.e. 4 days after the installation of new meter and the said bill dt.17/6/2015 was sent to the complainant of I code on average basis for a sum of Rs.3890/-  and in the said bill old reading was shown as 12,218 units and new reading is not mentioned due to installation of new meter because reading was less from the previous reading. It is submitted that reading of the removed meter was 18516 units whereas the complainant was charged only up to 12218 Units. As such a difference of 18516 – 12218= 6298 units was chargeable from the complainant because the said reading was not available at the time of generating the bill dt.17/6/2015 because the old meter was already removed on 13/06/2015. Hence the bill dt.23/10/2015 was sent to the complainant after including the difference of  said 6298 units which is shown as arrears of current year in the said bill.  It is admitted that complainant challenged the bill dt.23/10/2015 through the complaint which has been decided by the Hon’ble Forum on 17/08/2017 but it is denied that Hon’ble forum quashed the said amount.  It is alleged that vide order dt.17/8/2017 of the Hon’ble  Forum, OPs were at liberty to recover the  amount due if any from the complainant by issuing a separate bill cum notice to the complainant.  It is alleged that OPs sent a notice / memo no.3096 dt.07/11/2017 along with supplementary bill of amount of Rs.51,379/- to the complainant as per the order of the Hon’ble Forum. It is denied that notice / memo no.3096 dt.07/11/2017  for an amount of Rs.51,379/-  has been charged illegal, null and void and further amounts to the violation of the order of the Hon’ble Forum. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4.                In support of the complaint, Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant along with documents Ex.C-1 copy of  job order, Ex.C-2  copy of order dt.17/8/2017 passed by the Hon’ble Forum,  Ex.c-3 copy of letter/ memo No.3096 dt.7/11/2017, Ex.C-4  copy of bill  for Rs.51379/-, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-13 copies of bills and their receipts and closed the evidence.

5.                Ld. Counsel for the OPs has also tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Sandeep Puri, SDO along with document Ex.OP-1 copy of  MCO, Ex.Op-2  copy of bill dt.17/6/2015, Ex.Op-3 copy of bill dt.23/10/2015, Ex.C-4 copy of details of reading of meter, Ex.OP-5 copy of memo No.3096 dt.7/11/2017, Ex.OP-6 copy of supplementary bill, Ex.OP-7 copy of ledger and closed the evidence of the Opposite parties.

6.                We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.   

7.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant previously filed a complaint against the Opposite parties and the same was allowed by this Hon’ble Forum on 17/08/2017. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that amount of Rs.51,379/-  was wrongly levied. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that when the meter was burnt, it was not possible that how the OP recorded the 18516 units, as this consumption was consumed by the complainant. As such this application be allowed with special compensatory costs to the complainant.

8.                On the other hand ld. Counsel for the OPs has argued that admittedly the petition was allowed on 17/08/2017 but the OPs were given liberty to  recover  the  amount due if any from the complainant as per regulation NO.30.1.2 of  Electricity Supply Code of 2014 by issuing a separate bill/ notice.  Ld. Counsel further argued that notice was issued, after  that bill was sent so this complaint be dismissed.

9.                Admittedly previously also the complainant filed  a complaint before this Forum on 30/10/2015 and the same was allowed on 17/08/2017 vide order Ex.C-2 in which it was held by the Ld. President that they allowed the complaint and the bill dt.23/10/2015   in which amount of  Rs.51,379/-, which was levied as arrears in the said bill was quashed.  However OPs were given the liberty to recover the amount as per regulations of the PSPCL. After that notice  Ex.C-3 was issued to the complainant in which it was mentioned that recorded reading of the changed meter was 18516 units and you were directed to pay Rs.51379/- and in this regard bill Ex.C-4 was sent to the complainant.

10.              In the written statement on merits, it is mentioned that meter of the complainant was got burnt and that it was changed on 13/6/2015. At the time   of removal of the said meter the reading was 18516 units. Thereafter bill was generated for these units.  Admittedly when the meter was burnt, it was incumbent  upon the OPs to prove that the reading of the burnt meter was 18516 units but this fact was missing in this file. The burnt meter was never sent  to the ME Lab and there is no report of the PSPCL that inspite of that burnt meter, how they have calculated the  consumption of 18516 units. Ex.C-1 is the job order on the file which was sent by PSPCL in which it was also mentioned that meter was burnt and reading has  shown the reading of 18516 units. Admittedly OPs have lost their litigation previously. In this complaint they have failed to prove that how they have calculated this amount of units. As such the bill Ex.c-4 is not legal and tenable and OPs can not recover this amount. However OPs can send the bill on the average basis which is to be taken previously of the two years when the meter was burnt. In view of the above discussion, the complaint stands allowed with special cost of Rs.5000/-. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.  

ANNOUNCED*

Dated: 17/09/2020    

                                                                                Vinod Kumar Gulati          Jasjit Singh Bhinder                                                                                                                                                   Member                                President