Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/52

ASHOK KAKKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

14 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        52

Date of Institution :  17.02.2017

Date of Decision :    14.09.2017

Ashok Kakkar aged about 50 years s/o Sat Pal r/o Street No. 12, Bhan Singh Colony, Ferozepur Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                                     ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, through its Chairman cum Managing Director The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, DS City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Faridkot.               .........Ops

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:  Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to correct the bill dt 3.02.2017 for Rs.96,146/- and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic supply electric connection bearing a/c no 3000393615 and complainant is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill for the period from 11.02.2016 to 10.06.2016 for 976 units with current reading of 10653 for Rs.3,820/- and complainant duly paid the same. Thereafter, complainant did not receive any bill for the months of August to December, but he tentatively deposited Rs.2210/-with Ops vide receipt dt 1.09.2016. It is submitted that now, complainant received a bill for the period from 10.06.2016 to 3.02.2017 for Rs.96,146/- for 12483 units, which is highly excessive and illegal. On receiving the same, complainant approached the Ops and requested them to correct the bill, but they flatly refused to correct the bill, rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 21.02.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                           On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that bill dt 10.06.2016 might have been issued through spot billing machine and admitted that complainant deposited Rs.3,880/-vide receipt dt 25.07.2016, but in sap system the bill was deleted and consolidated bill has been issued. It is also admitted that complainant deposited Rs.2210/-vide receipt dt 1.09.2016 and asserted that due to failure in sap system, the bill for the period from 10.06.2016 to 3.02.2017 could not be issued properly and when sap system was corrected, the bill for the period from 11.02.2016 to 14.02.2017 for 3525 units was sent after adjusting the amount already deposited by complainant. Amount of Rs.5,231/-already deposited by complainant was adjusted and bill for Rs.20,340/-was issued. Complainant paid Rs.25000/-on 15.03.2017. it is further averred that bills are issued as per rules and regulations and necessary adjustment of previously paid amount has already been done. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                     Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 8 and closed the same.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Santokh Singh as Ex OP-1 and document Ex OP-2 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                      We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                                                     From the careful perusal of documents and evidence placed on record and after going through the arguments advanced by respective parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant is having  electric connection issued by Ops and is the consumer of OPs and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill for the period from 11.02.2016 to 10.06.2016 for 976 units with current reading of 10653 for Rs.3,820/- and complainant duly paid the same. Thereafter, he did not receive any bill for the months of August to December, but he tentatively deposited Rs.2210/-with Ops vide receipt dt 1.09.2016. It is submitted that complainant received a bill for the period from 10.06.2016 to 3.02.2017 for Rs.96,146/- for 12483 units, which is highly excessive and illegal. On receiving the same, complainant approached Ops with request  to correct the bill, but they flatly refused to correct the bill, rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides main relief. He has prayed for accepting the complaint. In reply, OPs stressed mainly on the point that due to failure in sap system, bills could not be issued properly and when they corrected the sap system, they issued correct bill for the period from 11.02.2016 to 14.02.2017 for 3525 units. It is admitted by them that complainant deposited Rs.3880/-on 25.07.2016 and Rs.2210/- on 1.09.2016, but have denied all the other allegations of complainant. it is asserted by Ops that bill for Rs.20,340/-is issued to complainant after making adjustment of amount already paid by complainant. As per Ops there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                                 The grievance of complainant is that amount of Rs.96,146/- raised by Ops vide bill dated 3.02.2017 is highly excessive, illegal and is unlawful and nothing is due towards him. On the other hand Ops assert that they have charged amount as per rules and regulations and on the basis of difference of consumption units for which complainant is required to pay the bill. They argued that due to failure of sap system bill could not be issued properly and when this mistake was corrected, they issued correct bill for the period from 11.02.2016 to 14.02.2017 for 3525 units. It is admitted that complainant deposited Rs.3880/-on 25.07.2016 and Rs.2210/- on 1.09.2016, but have denied all the other allegations of complainant. It is asserted by Ops that bill for Rs.20,340/-is issued to complainant after making adjustment of amount already paid by complainant and out of this bill complainant deposited Rs.25000/-as part payment. As per Ops there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. Complainant failed to pay this amount and therefore it is shown as arrear in next bill. The arrears of previous bill are shown in bill in question. There is no illegality in this bill and it is issued on the basis of actual consumption as per rules. Admittedly, the billing system of OPs called Sap failed and was not recording the true consumption and the bill was not issued correctly by OPs themselves. Ops failed to produce any evidence on record to prove that for which period their billing system called Sap failed and how they calculated the amount in question. Whereas as per Rules and Regulations of PSPCL in case the meter found defective then, account of consumer will be overhauled on the basis of consumption of corresponding period of previous year. The relevant regulations of PSPCL given in section 21.04 (g) (ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 vide notification no.PSERC/Secy/Regu.31 dated June, 29, 2007 are reproduced as hereunder:

“The account of a consumer will be overhauled for the period a defective meter remained at site and for the period of direct supply, on the basis of energy consumption of the corresponding period of the previous year after calibrating for the changes in load, if any. In case the average consumption for the corresponding period of previous year is not available then, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicted in para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous/succeeding year.

10                                  In the instant case, the average consumption for the corresponding period of the previous year must be available with the Ops, so in view of aforementioned section 21.4 (g) ( ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicated in Para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of previous year.

11                              In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and the impugned demand of Rs.96,146/- raised by Ops from complainant vide bill dated 3.02.2017 is set aside and quashed. However, the Ops are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period i.e 11.02.2016 to 14.02.2017 by overhauling his account on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year after making adjustment of amount already paid by complainant for this period. Ops are directed to adjust the amount of Rs.15,000/-deposited by complainant with OPs vide order dated 21.02.2017 passed by this Forum. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 14.09.2017

                  

             Member                                  President                   

           (P Singla)                      (Ajit Aggarwal)