Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/232

Lalit Mohan Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

02 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :       232

Date of Institution : 17.08.2016

Date of Decision :     2.05.2017

Lalit Mohan Gupta, advocate aged about 60 years s/o Sh Bimal Kumar Gupta, r/o #9, Adarsh Nagar, Old 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.                                   

   .........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 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 correct the bill dt  31.07.2016 for Rs.1,42,450/-, to change the defective meter and for further directing Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. GT-31/0147 old and  3000506936 (new) running in his premises 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 dated 29.06.2016 for Rs.17,880/- in which Rs5272/-were charged as sundry charges. Complainant paid the said bill on 1.08.2016 with late payment charges. Complainant again received bill dated 31.07.2016 for Rs.1,42,450/-for the period from 29.06.2016 to 31.07.2016 of defective meter on average basis of 1010 units, in which alongwith current bill, Rs.1,34,778/-were added as arrear of current years, which is very excessive as bill dated 29.06.2016 for Rs.17,880/- has already been paid vide receipt dt 1.08.2016 and in present bill dt 31.07.2016, arrear amount should not have been more than the amount of previous bill i.e Rs.17,880/-, but in it current year arrear is shown as Rs.1,34,778/-. Bill in question is issued on average basis by showing the meter defective and it is the duty of Ops to replace the defective meter within stipulated period as per rules of Ops. On receiving the said bill, complainant visited the office of Ops-2 and requested them to withdraw the same and also requested to replace his defective meter, but instead of listening to his requests, Ops threatened to disconnect his connection if,  he fails to pay the entire amount, 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 to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs 5000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 22.08.2016, 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 ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. However, it is admitted by Ops that bill dt 29.06.2016 was paid by complainant and asserted that bill in question dt 31.07.2016 for the period from 31.05.2016 to 29.06.2016 was prepared through billing machine and it was not correctly generated by machine. In fact, bill was generated by Sap System for the period 24.11.2014 to 29.06.2016 for 619 days for Rs.1,34,120/- on average basis as meter was dead during this period. The current bill for 1010 units was for Rs.7,604/- and bill in question issued for Rs.1,24,430/- instead of Rs.1,42,450/- and it  includes arrears of Rs.1,16,778/-, , 1,34,778-18000=1,16,778/-. The rebate  for amount paid is given and thus total bill including current bill was issued for Rs.1,24,430/-. It is asserted that due to large number of defective meters, meter of complainant could not be changed. It is further averred that no excessive bill was issued, rather it is issued as per LDH formula due to non availability of reading. Moreover, complainant never challenged the bill and also did not deposit the bill challenge fee. Even complainant was requested to challenge the bill, but he refused to do so. However, meter of complainant was changed vide MCO dt 31.08.2016 and will be sent to ME Lab and on receipt of  report from M E Lab, his bill would be overhauled. 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 7 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh as 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 ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant has a domestic electric connection installed in his residence issued by OPs and he is the consumer of Ops. He is regularly paying all the electricity bills to Ops and nothing is due as electricity charges. It is contended that complainant received a bill dated 29.06.2016 for Rs.17,880/- in which Rs.5272/-were charged as sundry charges. Complainant paid the said bill on 1.08.2016 with late payment charges. Complainant again received bill dated 31.07.2016 for Rs.1,42,450/-for the period from 29.06.2016 to 31.07.2016 of defective meter on average basis of 1010 units, in which alongwith current bill, Rs.1,34,778/-were added as arrear of current years, which is very excessive as bill dated 29.06.2016 for Rs.17,880/- has already been paid vide receipt dt 1.08.2016 and in present bill dt 31.07.2016, arrear amount should not have been more than the amount of previous bill i.e Rs.17,880/-, but in it current year arrear is shown as Rs.1,34,778/-. Bill in question is issued on average basis by showing the meter defective and it is the duty of Ops to replace the defective meter within stipulated period as per rules of Ops. On receiving the said bill, complainant visited the office of Ops-2 and requested them to withdraw the same and also requested to replace his defective meter, but instead of listening to his requests, Ops threatened to disconnect his connection if,  he fails to pay the entire amount. This act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to him. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

9                              To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part. However, it is admitted by Ops that bill dt 29.06.2016 was paid by complainant and asserted that bill in question dt 31.07.2016 for the period from 31.05.2016 to 29.06.2016 was prepared through billing machine and it was not correctly generated by machine. In fact, bill was generated by Sap System for the period 24.11.2014 to 29.06.2016 for 619 days for Rs.1,34,120/- on average basis as meter was dead during this period. The current bill for 1010 units was for Rs.7,604/- and bill in question issued for Rs.1,24,430/- instead of Rs.1,42,450/- and it  includes arrears of Rs.1,16,778/-, , 1,34,778-18000=1,16,778/-. The rebate  for amount paid is given and thus total bill including current bill was issued for Rs.1,24,430/-. It is asserted that due to large number of defective meters, meter of complainant could not be changed. It is further averred that no excessive bill was issued, rather it is issued as per LDH formula due to non availability of reading. Moreover, complainant never challenged the bill and also did not deposit the bill challenge fee. Even complainant was requested to challenge the bill, but he refused to do so. However, meter of complainant was changed vide MCO dt 31.08.2016 and will be sent to ME Lab and on receipt of  report from M E Lab, his bill would be overhauled. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other are refuted and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

10                          The case of the complainant is that he has a domestic electric connection issued by OPs in his house and he is regularly paying all the bill of electricity charges. Main contention of complainant is that Ops have issued him bill dt 31.07.2016 for the period from 29.06.2016 to 31.07.2016 for Rs.1,42,450/- in which Rs.1,34,778/-are charged as arrear of current year (SOP Rs.1,11,911/-+EDRs.20,729/- + OCT/CC Rs.2,038/-) which is very excessive and despite repeated requests by him to withdraw the bill in question, Ops  did not redress his grievance, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, Ops asserted that bill in question is generated by Sap System for the period from 24.11.2014 to 29.06.2016 for 619 days for Rs.1,34,120/-on average basis as the meter was dead during this period and it was issued on average basis as per LDH formula due to non availability of reading. Even complainant has not challenged the bill and has also not paid the bill challenge fee. As per Ops, now they have changed his meter and his meter would be sent to ME lab and on receipt of report from there, his bill would be overhauled and further asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

11                         Now, it is the admitted case of the parties that complainant is the consumer of Ops having domestic connection in his premises. It is further admitted that Ops issued bill dated 31.07.2016 for Rs.1,42,450/- in which Rs.1,34,778/- were added as arrears of current year. The version of Ops is that they issued the bill in question for the period from 24.11.2014 to 29.06.2016 for  619 days for Rs.1,34,120/- on average basis as the meter of complainant was dead during this period. Admittedly, the meter of complainant was defective one and dead and was not recording the true consumption and the bill was issued on average basis as per LDH formula 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.

12                       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.

13                  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 bill dated 31.07.2016 is set aside and quashed. However, the Ops are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period by overhauling his account on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year. Ops are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.20,000/-deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 22.08.2016 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 : 2.05.2017

                  

Member                                  President                        (P Singla)                   (Ajit Aggarwal)