DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : 33/2017

Date of Institution : 21.03.2017

Date of Decision : 1.11.2017

Dyawanti aged about 70 years wife of Janak Raj resident of Street No. 1, Tapa Mandi, District Barnala.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala, Through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Office, Tapa Mandi, District Barnala, Through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, SDO/ME, Sangrur, Through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Harpreet Singh counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member

2. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

ORDER

(MS VANDNA SIDHU PRESIDING MEMBER):

As per complaint No. 33 of 2017 opposite party No. 1 is head office and opposite party No. 2 is sub divisional office and opposite party No. 3 is meter testing lab of opposite parties. Complainant having connection No. L62MS240288Y on her name for her residential house for personal use. Complainant is paying her all liabilities within time. By this way complainant is consumer of all the opposite parties. On 22.5.2016 opposite party No. 2 sent monthly bill for electricity consumption and complainant astonished to see that it was the bill of Rs. 26,320/- for consumption of 3483 units for the time 25.3.2016 to 22.5.2016. Complainant challenged about technical fault in meter and for the unreasonable amount of the bill to the opposite party No. 2 but opposite party No. 2 did not listen to the complainant and delayed the matter of the complainant without taking further action against the complaint of the complainant. Thereafter, challenging fee for reasonable amount was also paid of Rs. 120/- by the complainant vide receipt No. 298/4908 dated 24.5.2016. On 25.5.2016 officials of the opposite party No. 2 replaced the said meter with new one and took in possession the alleged technically faulted meter which was in running condition at the time of replacement and also an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was deposited by the complainant as per the directions of opposite party No. 2 and told to the complainant that the challenged meter will be inspected at Sangrur by opposite party No. 3 in the presence of the complainant and also assured that opposite parties will call the complainant at the time of inspection but complainant never called by the opposite parties for inspection of the said meter. On dated 11.2.2017 after eight months complainant sent one letter-cum-reminder to the opposite party No. 2 for inspection of the said meter. On 16.2.2017 opposite party No. 2 sent one call letter to the complainant for inspection of the meter in which complainant was called at Sangrur on dated 20.2.2017. Opposite party No. 3 inspected meter in the presence of complainant on the day of the inspection. Opposite parties gave report after inspection that counter of the meter has stopped to work so that no reading can be diagnosed in the said meter. But meter was in running condition at the time of replacement. Bills sent by opposite parties to the complainant clearly showing about the meter reading, means meter was in running condition at the time of replacement. Complainant approached to the opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 with complaint to correct the amount on average basis for the period from 25.3.2016 to 22.5.2016 and refund the amount already paid by the complainant of the alleged bill of Rs. 26,320/- after deducting the amount on average bill for that period. But every time opposite parties No. 1 and 2 assured to the consumer that it will be refunded very soon but till today complaint of complainant neither solved by the opposite party No. 1 nor by opposite party No. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant many times approached opposite parties No. 1 and 2 but every time opposite parties No. 1 and 2 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.

2. It is further submitted that in the month of March complainant again approached opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and asked them to refund the money paid by the complainant and to make necessary corrections in the bill, but with no result till today complainant could not get any response from the opposite parties. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint.

Relief.-

The opposite parties may kindly be directed to make necessary corrections in the alleged bill of Rs. 26,320/- for the period of 25.3.2016 to 22.5.2016 and also refund the amount already paid by the complainant of Rs. 15,000/- after deducting the amount on average bill basis alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment and further directed jointly and severally to pay sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant due to mental torture, agony and harassment and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. Upon notice of this complaint opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which they submitted that complainant has not been paying his liabilities within time and there was alleged technical fault in the meter. Further, it is submitted that amount mentioned in the bill is reasonable. It is submitted that the bill of 3483 units is based on actual consumption. It is totally denied by the opposite parties that complainant ever approached to them. It is submitted that complainant was intimated at the time of inspection to make her presence. It is admitted to the extent that the meter was replaced on 25.5.2016 but there was no technical fault in the meter. Rather the meter was tampered by the complainant as backside of meter body has cracked. The meter was not in running condition at the time of replacement. It is denied that no reading can be diagnosed at the time of inspection. It is also denied that the meter was running condition at the time of replacement. The removed meter was sealed at the time of replacement. It is further submitted that on 20.2.2017 in the presence of the complainant officials of PSPCL at ME Lab Sangrur checked the removed meter and reported that the meter cannot be tested as the counter of the meter stopped and in this regard necessary entry has been entered in the record of the opposite parties. Further, it is submitted by the opposite parties that the impugned bill is based on actual consumption and there is no question of correcting the bill on average basis for the period 25.3.2016 to 22.5.2016 and refund the amount. It is also denied by the opposite parties that opposite parties No. 1 and 2 assured to the complainant that amount would be refunded. Furthermore, it is submitted by the opposite parties that an amount of Rs. 11,320/- is due from the complainant to the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.

4. In order to prove her case the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of letter dated 16.2.2017 Ex.C-2, copy of letter dated 11.2.2017 Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 3.3.2017 Ex.C-4, copy of memo dated 20.2.2017 Ex.C-5, bills Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.

5. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence copy of MCO dated 24.5.2016 Ex.OP-1.2.3/1, copy of challan dated 20.2.2017 Ex.OP-1.2.3/2, copy of lab report dated 20.2.2017 Ex.OP-1.2.3/3, copy of letter dated 16.2.2017 Ex.OP-1.2.3/4, copy of letter dated 3.3.2017 Ex.OP-1.2.3/5, affidavit of Navneet Kumar AEE Ex.OP-1.2.3/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by both the parties.

7. After perusing the entire record and hearing counsel of both the parties this fact came before this Forum that complainant is consumer of opposite parties and is paying regular bills of electricity consumption to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. But after considering Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7, Ex.C-8, Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10, bill of dated 22.5.2016 gives indication of meter challenge and sundry charges in regard of payment of bill is Rs. 26,320/-. Ex.C-7 shows surcharges Rs. 12,140/- and Ex.C-8 dated 25.9.2016 is bill of Rs. 23,725/-. Ex.C-9 is the bill of Rs. 17,544/- and Ex.C-10 is the bill of Rs. 14,320/-. But as per version of the opposite parties amount of Rs. 11,320/- is still due from the complainant.

8. According to complaint complainant gave one application on 11.2.2017 in which complainant alleged about default of meter due to technical fault and about units 3483 of bill dated 22.5.2016. So as per Ex.C-2 i.e. application dated 11.2.2017 she challenged amount of Rs. 26,320/-. She also deposited challenged fee of Rs. 120/- and receipt No. 298/4908 dated 24.5.2016. Furthermore, in Ex.C-2 i.e. application to SDO in regard of test report of Account No. L62MS240288Y in which it is also specifically mentioned by the complainant i.e. Rs. 15,000/- was deposited by the complainant and alleged old meter is in custody of the opposite parties after changing with new one by her. Ex.C-3 is the letter No. 349 of 16.2.2017 by opposite parties to the complainant in regard of making presence of complainant on 20.2.2017 to reach at Sangrur for inspection of the alleged old meter. As per Ex.C-4 one letter No. 431 of 3.3.2017 which was sent by opposite party No. 2 to complainant in regard of result of challenged old meter, Account No. MS24/288 in which it is specifically mentioned that as per letter No. 71 of 20.2.2017 results of alleged meter were received by opposite party No. 2 from Assistant Executive Engineer ME Lab and opposite party No. 2 sent photocopy of this result to complainant and as per Ex.C-4 it is specifically mentioned by opposite party No. 2 that as a result of inspection report meter was dead and it is not in running condition. Ex.C-5 which is copy of Memo No. 71 dated 20.2.2017 also brought on record by the complainant and Ex.OP-1.2.3/3 by opposite parties which is testimonial copy, it is specifically proves the result of meter No. 99467 is not able for testing because its counter is standstill and dial test of meter shows that the meter is dead. The initial reading of the meter is 48442 and final reading is also 48442. As per Ex.OP-1.2.3/2 brought on record challan No. 129 dated 20.2.2017 and Ex.OP-1.2.3/3 is also brought on record i.e result of challenged meter against store challan No. 128, 129 and 130 dated 20.2.2017 which is showing final reading of alleged meter is 48442. Ex.OP-1.2.3/4 and Ex.OP-1.2.3/5 proves that before inspection of the alleged meter intimation was given to the complainant about her presence and result of testing report is also sent to complainant by way of photocopy of letter No. 431 of 3.3.2017. Ex.OP-1.2.3/6 is the affidavit of Navneet Kumar Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Sub Division, Tapa also corroborate the written version filed by the opposite parties. He deposed in his affidavit that there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and the bill is based on actual consumption and as such there is no question of correcting the bill on average basis for the period of 25.3.2016 to 22.5.2016 and refund the amount. Furthermore it is particularly deposed in his affidavit that the removed meter was tampered by the complainant as the backside of the meter body had cracks. He also deposed that the meter was not in running condition at the time of replacement. The removed meter was sealed at the time of replacement. It is further deposed by the Executive Engineer in Ex.OP-1.2.3/6 that on 20.2.2017 in presence of complainant officials of the PSPCL at ME Lab Sangrur checked the removed meter and reported that meter cannot be tested as counter of the meter stopped and in this regard necessary entry has been entered in the record of the opposite parties. Furthermore it is specifically deposed in Ex.OP-1.2.3/6 that amount of Rs. 11,320/- is due from the complainant.

9. As per the conclusion of the present complaint this Forum has view is that no doubt the complainant falls under section 2 (1) (d). But according to Ex.O.P1.2.3/1 proves that at the time of taking in possession the alleged meter, opposite parties had taken signatures of the complainant. Moreover Ex.O.P1.2.3/1 indicates about that note which was mentioned at the time of preparing Ex.O.P1.2.3/1 i.e. back side body of alleged meter had cracks. Moreover it is very pertinent to mention by this Forum that as per Ex.O.P1.2.3/1 reading of alleged meter No. 099467 shown 48442. And Ex.C-7 also shown final reading of alleged meter No. 99467 is 48442. So, Ex.O.P1.2.3/1 is not rebutted by complainant in entire evidence which was brought on record by her.

10. In view of the above discussion, as per conclusion of the present complaint there is no deficiency on service on the part of opposite parties and the present complaint is dismissed without costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to records.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

1st Day of November, 2017

(Vandna Sidhu)

Member

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member