Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/120

Harpartap Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

24 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                          Complaint No :             120 of 2019

Date of Institution :        02.05.2019

Date of Decision :          24.02.2020

Harpartap Singh aged about 43 years son of Gurdeep Singh, resident of Prem Nagar, Happy Model School, Kotkapura, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

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

        .........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

              Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:  Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Mohan Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.   

cc no.- 120 of 2019

 

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 bills for last six months from 8.10.2018 to 8.04.2019 and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having electric connection bearing a/c no.3004943575 in his name installed outside his premises and he has been paying all the bills as and when received and nothing is due towards him on account of consumption charges. It is submitted that complainant received bill issued in August 2018 for Rs.5,460/- and status of his meter was shown as P. He further received bill issued in October 2018 for Rs.54,310/- and on receiving the same, complainant approached OPs where he was advised to challenge the meter. He moved an application

cc no.- 120 of 2019

dt 17.10.2018 for checking the meter from ME Lab and also deposited requisite fee, but till date OPs have not responded regarding status of his meter. Thereafter, complainant again received bills dated 9.12.2018, 9.02.2019 and 8.04.2019 for Rs.56,710/-, Rs.59,640/and Rs.63,800/-respectively. Complainant approached the office of OP-2 several times with request to  them to correct the said bills and get deposited the actual consumption charges, but despite repeated requests OPs did not correct the said bills, rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. Complainant has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to set aside the demand raised vide impugned bills and for further directing them to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses incurred by complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 06.05.2019,

cc no.- 120 of 2019

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 took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and he has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is admitted that complainant challenged the meter and deposited requisite fees of Rs.120/-. Old meter of complainant was removed on 19.11.2018 and new meter was installed and as per rules and regulations of OPs vide store challan no.83 dated 8.01.2019, meter of complainant was sent to M E Lab for checking in M E Lab and in that checking, it was found to be working correctly. Result of said checking was sent to complainant vide memo no.126 dated 30.01.2019, but he challenged the consumption charges only to file the present complaint and unauthorizedly removed the running load of his meter to the connection in the name of his father Gurdeep Singh, which is running on ground floor of premises. On 27.08.2019, connection of complainant was checked by team of Balwinder Singh alongwith other officials of PSPCL and in said

cc no.- 120 of 2019

checking it was found that complainant changed load of his connection to the connection of his father. Amount charged to complainant is as per consumption. On merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and further averred that correct meter of suitability capacity was installed outside his house. Meter of complainant was correct and when complainant found that his meter is correct, he shifted the entire load of his connection on the connection running in the name of his father installed on ground floor with ulterior motive to plead that new meter is recording correct and less consumption than previous meter. New meter was installed at reading of 2 units and bill for the period from 25.04.2018 to 8.10.2018 was issued on 6.10.2018. Reading of his old meter, which was checked and found correct in ME Lab was 7053 units and this consumption reading was added in bill dt 6.10.2018 i.e 7053+2 = 7055 units for Rs.54,310/-, but complainant failed to pay the same. Next bill was for 35 units for Rs.391/- and previous amount was also added in it and difference of final reading of 830 units was also charged and total bill

cc no.- 120 of 2019

for Rs.56,279/-was issued. Thereafter, bill dated 9.02.2019 was issued for 13 units showing old reading 7 and new reading 20 units and complainant was required to pay previous bill also. Previous arrears were added and after adding current consumption charges bill for 63,800/-was issued, which he failed to pay. All the amount is charged as per rules and regulations and as per consumption reading recorded by his meter. No cause of action arises against answering OPs as complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention only to harass the OPs and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Ld Counsel for OPs has further denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. Amount charged is due towards him and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

 5                                 Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 7 and closed the same.

cc no.- 120 of 2019

6                                      In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of  Balwinder Singh AEE Ex OP-1, affidavit of Sukhmander Singh Ex OP-2, documents Ex OP-3 to Ex OP-7 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

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 record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that OPs issued him bill in October 2018 for Rs.54,310/-, which was very excessive. He moved application for checking the meter from ME Lab and also deposited requisite fee, but thereafter, he again received excessive bills dated 9.12.2018, 9.02.2019 and 8.04.2019 for Rs.56,710/-, Rs.59,640/and Rs.63,800/-respectively. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, Ops have not corrected the said bills and have threatened to disconnect his electric

cc no.- 120 of 2019

connections, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, plea taken by OPs is that amount in question is charged as per rules and regulations and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is observed that complainant challenged the meter and deposited requisite fees of Rs.120/-.  His old meter of complainant was removed on 19.11.2018 and new meter was installed at the place of old one and as per rules, meter of complainant was sent to M E Lab for checking in M E Lab where after checking, it was found to be working correctly. As per Ops, he challenged the consumption charges and unauthorizedly removed the running load of his meter to the meter connection running in the name of his father Gurdeep Singh. said connection is running on ground floor of premises of complainant. On 27.08.2019, during checking by team of PSPCL officials, it was found that complainant changed load of his connection to the connection of his father. Meter of complainant was correct and when complainant found that his meter is correct, he shifted the entire load of his connection on another connection running in same premises

cc no.- 120 of 2019

in the name of his father installed on ground floor to show that new meter is records correct and less consumption than previous meter. New meter was installed at reading of 2 units and bill for the period from 25.04.2018 to 8.10.2018 was issued on 6.10.2018. Reading of his old meter, which was checked and found correct in ME Lab was 7053 units and this consumption reading was added in bill dt 6.10.2018 i.e 7053+2 = 7055 units for Rs.54,310/-, but complainant failed to pay the same. Next bill was for 35 units for Rs.391/- and previous amount was also added in it and difference of final reading of 830 units was also charged and total bill for Rs.56,279/-was issued. Thereafter, bill dated 9.02.2019 was issued for 13 units showing old reading 7 and new reading 20 units and complainant was required to pay previous bill also. Previous arrears were added and after adding current consumption charges bill for 63,800/- was correctly issued, but complainant did not clear the said bill. All this amount is charged as per rules and complainant is liable to pay the same.

9                                  From the careful perusal of record, pleadings made by respective parties and evidence placed before the Forum, it is

cc no.- 120 of 2019

observed that through affidavits Ex OP-1 and Ex OP-2 Balwindr Singh AEE and Sukhmander Singh have specified in their affidavits that meter challenged by complainant was checked in ME Lab and it was working correctly and recording consumption properly and cleared the point that two meters were installed in the premises of complainant. one connection was in the name of complainant and other was in the name of his father.  Earlier AC was installed in upper portion of house and now, complainant has shifted the load on other connection by removing the AC from his account number to show that there was less consumption of new meter than the challenged meter, but meter challenged by complainant was correct and there is no fault in that. Account statement of another connection running in the name of Gurdeep Singh father of complainant, which was also installed in same premises is proved through Ex OP-4 and account statement of his own connection is Ex OP-3. Ex OP-5 copy of Performance Record of Electronic Meters/ Store Challan and Ex Op-6 Result of challenged meter also proves the version of OPs that meter removed from his premises was working correctly and there was no fault in that.

cc no.- 120 of 2019

Checking Report Ex OP-7 further proves the version of OPs that complainant reduced the load from his meter and shifted the same to another connection running in same premises. Therefore, it is made out that all this amount is charged as per rules and regulations of PSPCL and act on the part of complainant in not paying the consumption charges is not appropriate.  He is liable to pay the consumption charges for the units consumed through his meter and there is no escape for him.

10                                In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in the light of evidence produced by OPs, it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and thus, complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the present complaint, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 24.02.2020

 

                                        (Param Pal Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

            Member                                   President