Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/238

Jasveer Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Kapil Sahoonja

15 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :         238 of 2017

Date of Institution :   25.07.2017

Date of Decision :     15.01.2019

 

Jasveer Kaur aged about 55 years w/o Jagseer Singh r/o Kothe Hazura Singh, Dhilwan Kalan, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                                     ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, op Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Bargari.               .........Ops

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:  Sh Kapil Sahoonja, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, 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

cc no.- 238 of 2017

State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to correct the bill dated 12.06.2017 for Rs.45,230/- and also to corrects the bills for the period from 2009 to 2012 and to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complaint belongs to scheduled category and 1 KW load is sanctioned for her electric meter. Till January, 2012, she was receiving bills regularly and was paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards her. It is contended that after that OPs stopped sending her bills without any notice or intimation and when complainant approached Ops, she was informed that those consumers who fall in scheduled category having 1 KW load, their power consumption bills have been exempted by the Government. Thereafter, it came to her notice that her meter group falls under the area of Bargari group from where the power consumption bills were to be prepared but meter of complainant has been installed in the area of Sarawa group account and due to installation of complainant meter in wrong group, bill was not issued to her. Every time on enquiry she was told that as she falls in scheduled category and her sanctioned load is only one kilowatt, therefore, she is exempted by Board for paying power consumption bills. It is submitted that complainant received a bill dated 12.06.2017 for Rs.45,230/-for sundry charges, which is highly excessive and illegal. It is further submitted that no detail or prior notice for sundry charges was

cc no.- 238 of 2017

ever issued to complainant and she is entitled for exemption from power units every month as per scheme of government, but OPs have not deducted the units to which she is entitled as per scheduled category. On receiving the same, complainant approached OPs and requested them to correct the same, but they told her that bill in question is prepared for consumption of 20596 units. It is further submitted that on rural feeder, electricity is provided for only 3-4 hours in routine and in this way, consumption of complainant is very less and she cannot consume 20596 units when she is entitled for exemption as per instruction of the Board. Even JE of Ops reported that meter of complainant has been installed wrongly in another group and therefore, meter reader could not supply the bills monthly and this amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Complainant requested them to correct the bill, but they flatly refused to correct the bill, 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 27.07.2017, 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 has been sent to complainant on the basis of consumption. Old meter reading was taken on 21.04.2017 and current was taken on 12.06.2017. meter showed the reading of 6248 units and thus, bill was sent to complainant as per rules and regulations and same is valid and legal. It is totally denied that any writing is given by JE for wrong meter group. It is further averred that bills is issued as per rules and regulations and amount in question is charged after adopting the due process and procedure. 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 4 and closed the same.

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Jodhbir Singh as Ex OP-1 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.

 

cc no.- 238 of 2017

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 she has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. Till January, 2012, she received all bills regularly and thereafter, OPs stopped sending her bills without any notice. She was informed by OPs that those consumers who fall in scheduled category having 1 KW load, their power consumption bills have been exempted by the Government. Thereafter, it came to her notice that her meter group falls under the area of Bargari group from where the power consumption bills were to be prepared but meter of complainant has been installed in the area of Sarawa group account and due to installation of complainant meter in wrong group, bill was not issued to her. After that she received a bill dated 12.06.2017 for Rs.45,230/-for sundry charges without any detail, which is highly excessive and illegal though she is entitled for exemption from power units every month as per scheme of government, but OPs have not deducted the units to which she is entitled as per scheduled category, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. In reply, OPs stressed mainly on the point that impugned bill has been sent to

cc no.- 238 of 2017

complainant on the basis of consumption. Old meter reading was taken on 21.04.2017 and current on 12.06.2017. Meter showed the reading of 6248 units and thus, bill was sent to complainant as per rules and regulations and same is valid and legal. It is sternly denied that any writing is given by JE for wrong meter group. Bills is issued as per rules and regulations and amount in question is charged after adopting the due process and they are entitled to recover the same. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs.

9                                                 The grievance of complainant is that she falls under reserve category and as per instructions of government, she is exempted for paying charges on account of power consumption as her sanctioned load is only one kilowatt and moreover, in their rural area, power is supplied for only four or five hours a day. It is prayed that amount of Rs.45,230/- raised by Ops vide bill dated 12.06.2017 is highly excessive, illegal and is unlawful and nothing is due towards her. On the other hand Ops assert that they have charged amount as per rules and regulations. As per Ops there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. There is no illegality in this bill and it is issued on the basis of actual consumption as per rules. It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the consumer of Ops having domestic connection in her premises. It is further admitted that Ops issued the above bill. It is admitted case of the parties that opposite parties gave concession to reserved category for 400 units of the electricity and complainant falls under scheduled category. The

cc no.- 238 of 2017

grievance of the complainant is that she has a sanctioned load of 1 K.W only  and she consumed very little electricity normally, but she received bills in question for very excessive consumption than normal. On receipt of disputed bill, she immediately approached the opposite party and complained regarding her excessive bill to OPs, but  they did not redress her grievance. Ex C-3 copy of bill dated 12.06.2017 clearly indicates the fact that power consumption for last six months of meter of complainant is very low and it cannot rise up to 6248 units suddenly. It is also observed that in rural areas power supply is not provided for entire day and thus, consumption level cannot rise upto 6248 units in two months. It is also not the case of the opposite party that there was a marriage function or any other construction work was being carried out in the house of the complainant during this period, which resulted into such a huge consumption of electricity. So it is cleared that the meter in question was not recording correct consumption. As per the rules and regulations if there is no any defect in the electric meter and not recording consumption than the consumption shall be charged on the basis of average of last 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

cc no.- 238 of 2017

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 raised by Ops from complainant vide impugned bill dated 12.06.2017 is set aside and quashed. However, the Ops are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period by overhauling her account on the basis of average consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year. Ops are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 27.07.2017 passed by this Forum in subsequent bills. Compliance of this

cc no.- 238 of 2017

 

                           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. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 15.01.2019

 

                              (Param Pal Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

   Member                                  President