Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/194

Ashok Kumar Monga - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

10 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :         194 of 2018

Date of Institution :    26.11.2018

Date of Decision :      10.06.2019

Ashok Kumar Monga aged about 66 years s/o Sh Bhag Chand, r/o New Cantt 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, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Mohan Singh 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 withdraw the bill dt 6.11.2018 for Rs.21,450/, which contains

cc  no. 194 of 2018

Rs.15,527/-as arrears and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is using domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. KG-59/0073 (old), 3000437844 (new) running in his name and he has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill dt 6.09.2018 for Rs.9,360/-, which he could not pay due to some health problems. Now, he received bill dated 6.11.2018 for Rs.21,450/- for 698 units for the period from 6.09.2018 to 6.11.2018 in which Rs.15,527/- are charged as arrears of current year. It is submitted that complainant could not deposit bill dated 6.09.2017 for Rs.9360/-and except that bill, nothing is due towards him on account of any kind of arrears. On receiving the said bill, complainant reached the office of OPs and requested them to withdraw the illegal demand for arrears charged in present bill, but OP-2 refused to do so and threatened him to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice 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 arrears and prayed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

cc  no. 194 of 2018

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 28.11.2018, 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 incorrect and wrong and admitted that bill dated 6.09.2018 was issued by them through spot billing machine on average basis as per reading recorded for same month in last year for Rs.9547/- for the period from 9.07.2018 to 6.09.2018. it is averred that meter of complainant was changed vide MCO dated 20.08.2019 and new meter was installed with initial reading of one unit. Bill was issued for 1227 units. When old meter was removed, reading was 75451 units and complainant had made payment only upto 74948 units. Consumption of 503 units was also charged in this bill and thus, bill was issued with new meter consumption of 1227 plus 503 old units and it was for 1730 units for Rs.14,722/- and Rs.553/-were charged on account of revision of new tariff and total bill was for Rs.15,290/-. Bill dated 6.11.2018 was issued for the period from 6.09.2018 to 6.11.2018 showing old reading of 1228 and new reading of 1926 units. Bill was for 698 units. Complainant failed to pay the previous bill and thus, amount of previous bill was charged as arrear and total bill was issued for Rs.21,660/-. Complainant paid Rs.15,000/-on 3.12.2018 and balance of Rs.6749/-was due. All this amount is charged by Ops as per rules and regulations and complainant is liable to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of

cc  no. 194 of 2018

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 4 and closed the same.

6                                       In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-7 and closed the evidence.

7                                      We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

8                                     The case of the complainant is that OPs issued him bill dated 6.09.2018 for Rs.9,360/- , which he could not pay due to some health problems and except that bill nothing is due towards him. Thereafter, he received bill dated 6.11.2018 for Rs.21,450/- for 698 units for the period from 6.09.2018 to 6.11.2018 in which Rs.15,527/- are charged as arrears of current year. Main contention of complainant is that except bill dated 6.09.2018, nothing is due towards him on account of consumption charges, but amount of Rs.15,527/-charged by OPs on account of arrears of current year is totally illegal and excessive as he

 

cc  no. 194 of 2018

has already paid all the previous bills, but despite repeated requests OPs did not redress his grievance. On the other hand plea taken by OPs is that Bill dated 6.09.2018 was issued through spot billing machine on average basis as per reading recorded for same month in last year. Meter of complainant was changed vide MCO dated 20.08.2018 and new meter was installed with initial reading of one unit. Bill was issued for 1227 units. When old meter was removed, reading was 75451 units and complainant had made payment only upto 74948 units. Consumption of 503 units was also charged in this bill and thus, bill was issued with new meter consumption of 1227 plus 503 old units and it was for 1730 units for Rs.14,722/- and Rs.553/-were charged on account of revision of new tariff and total bill was for Rs.15,290/-. Bill dated 6.11.2018 was issued for the period from 6.09.2018 to 6.11.2018 showing old reading of 1228 and new reading of 1926 units. Bill was for 698 units. Complainant failed to pay the previous bill and thus, amount of previous bill was charged as arrear and total bill was issued for Rs.21,660/-. Complainant paid Rs.15,000/-on 3.12.2018 and balance of Rs.6749/-was due. They have rightly claimed this amount from the complainant as sundry charges as per rules and regulations of the OPs.

9                                                 From the careful perusal of record and pleadings advance by parties, it is observed that version of the OPs is that the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO dated 20.08.2018 and at the time of removal of meter, reading of meter was 75451 whereas complainant had paid bill upto reading of 74948. There

cc  no. 194 of 2018

is difference of 503 units which is charged in bill dated 6.09.2018. The complainant did not pay the bill dated 6.09.2018 and as such, the amount of bill dated 6.09.2018 is charged as arrears in the bill dated 6.11.2018. Ld Counsel for complainant argued that he has cleared all the bills and has paid all the dues regarding old meter and nothing is due towards him for the consumption of old meter. Moreover, as per their own pleadings, the old meter was defective and the bill dated 6.09.2018 was issued on the basis of average consumption of previous year then, how can OPs claim that the complainant had to pay difference of reading of 503 units of old meter whereas it is reading of defective meter. Opposite parties have not produced on record any evidence to show that the electric meter of the complainant was removed, packed and sealed in the presence and under signatures of the complainant or his representative and the electric meter was never checked in the M.E. Lab in the presence of the complainant or his representative. Therefore, it is crystal clear that no procedure has been adopted by the opposite parties framed under the Rules and Regulations of the P.S.P.C.L. regarding removing, packing, sealing and checking of the defective electric meter in the M.E. Lab and thereafter raising the demand arising out of the said checking, if any. As per regulations no.55. Replacement of Meters/Metering Equipment : 55.1 Single Phase Electromechanical Meters : E/M Meters removed from the consumer premises on replacement with the electronic meters shall be returned to M E Labs without any other formality and ME Labs will not carry out any checking/testing of these meters except in case of

cc  no. 194 of 2018

disputed meters. In case of disputed meters removed under code – G, M & R (glass broken, meter burnt & ME seals broken) and in cases where there is sufficient evidence of theft /tampering etc at the time of removal, the JE concerned shall record his observation on the MCO itself and such meters shall be packed and sealed in the presence of consumers for further checking in M E Labs in his presence. Further as per regulation no. 21.4 (d) : In case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the Licensee’s laboratory, the consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing atleast seven days in advance. The signature of the consumer, or his authorized representative, if present would be obtained on the Test Result Sheet and a copy thereof supplied to consumer. He further argued that moreover, as per their own regulations, OPs cannot charge the dues relating to previous period without issuing a separate bill giving complete detail of the charges levied. Copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied should also be supplied to consumer but in the present case, no separate bill or notice giving complete detail of the amount charged or period of the amount ever issued to the complainant. So, as per their own regulations and instructions, OPs cannot demand this amount and cannot add this amount in current bill. The Ld Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity supply Instruction Manual of OPs where regulation no. 93 is regarding payment of arrears not originally billed. Our Hon’ble High Court has also opined in Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is

cc  no. 194 of 2018

required before imposing the penalty and an order about person who was likely to be affected thereby. In the present case, the appellants OPs have miserably failed to show that previous reading of defective meter was correct. In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the electricity Act and it is deficiency in service. Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case.  Further as per their own regulations and instructions, OPs cannot charge any amount of previous dues or arrears without giving any supplementary bill or notice giving complete detail of charges and also giving copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied. They cannot demand the arrear in the current bill as sundry charges and in the present case, the OPs have failed to produce any evidence or document which proves that they issued any supplementary bill or notice giving complete and full detail of the amount charged by them as arrears of consumption as alleged by them.

10                                     In the light of above discussion and arguments advanced by parties and case law produced by the complainant, we are fully convinced with complainant and he has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant and to withdraw the demand regarding 503 units as difference of old meter reading which is demanded by them vide bill dated 6.11.2018 from complainant on account of alleged arrears of current year. OPs are further directed to

cc  no. 194 of 2018

adjust the amount of Rs.15,000/- if any, deposited by complainant in compliance of the order dated  28.11.2018  passed by this Forum in subsequent bills.  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 : 10.06.2019

 

(Parampal Kaur)                          (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                            President