DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : 200/2019

Date of Institution   : 13.11.2019

Date of Decision    : 04.08.2020

 

Lovenish Garg aged 30 years son of Sukhdev Chand Garg resident of Jiwan Patwari Wali Gali No. 2, M.C. Road, Near L.B.S. College, Barnala-148101.     

                        …Complainant

Versus

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Managing Director/Authorized Person. 

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Senior XEN, PSPCL Sub Division, Barnala. 

3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its SDO/AEE, PSPCL, Sub Division Sub Urban, Barnala.

         ...Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg counsel for complainant.

Sh. S.K. Kotia counsel for opposite parties. 

 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2.Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

 

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):

The complainant namely Lovenish Garg has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) (in short the Act) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman/Authorized Person and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that an electric connection is installed at the house of the complainant bearing account No. 3002012390 in the name of Late Sh. Sukhdev Chand Garg father of the complainant. He had been paying the consumption bills and as such he is beneficiary consumer of the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the complainant received notice vide memo No. 563 dated 28.3.2019 raising illegal demand of Rs. 26,567/- for the period from 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016 and Rs. 8,600/- as arrears. The demand of the opposite parties is hopelessly time barred as no amount can be demanded after two years. The complainant has been paying the electricity consumption bills from time to time and nothing is due against him and the complainant has already paid the due amount for the period of 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016. It is further alleged that the meter was burnt but the opposite parties failed to change it and during this period the complainant had been paying the bills whatsoever issued by the opposite parties. Moreover, the arrears were recovered by them in subsequent bills dated 15.10.2017 for the period from 19.8.2017 to 15.10.2017. The complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 3 number of times and requested to withdraw the demand, but all in vain. As such, the above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i) To withdraw all the illegal demand of Rs. 26,567/- raised through memo dated 28.3.2019 and also Rs. 8,600/- as arrears. 

ii) To pay Rs. 10,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties appeared and filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, concealment of material facts, cause of action and locus-standi and complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious etc. On merits, it is not admitted that an electric connection is installed in the house of the complainant bearing account No. 3002012390 in the name of Sh. Sukhdev Chand Garg father of the complainant. It is further submitted that till date no information has been supplied by any legal heir of the deceased Sukhdev Chand Garg as per record. It is denied that complainant received notice vide memo No. 563 dated 28.3.2019 raising illegal demand of Rs. 26,567/- for the period from 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016 and Rs. 8,600/- as arrears. It is further submitted that as per consumption data of the consumer, meter of the consumer was burnt from 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016 and the same was replaced on 17.10.2016 vide MCO. The consumption of consumer was recorded NIL for the period 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016 as per consumption data. So, as per provisions of Claus 21.5.2 (a) of supply code 2014, the account of consumer is to be overhauled for the period the meter remains burnt on the basis of consumption of the corresponding period of the previous years. As such, the account was overhauled on the basis of available consumption from 15.3.2015 to 27.11.2015 (total consumption 4550 units) which was adjusted to correspond to the period from 15.4.2015 to 16.10.2015 and this consumption amounted to 3701 units. The bill of this consumption was raised for Rs. 26,567/- vide memo No. 963 dated 28.3.2019 as per the rates of the electricity prevailing in the year 2016-17. It is denied that moreover the arrears were recovered by the opposite parties in subsequent till date 15.10.2017 for the period from 19.8.2017 to 15.10.2017. It is further submitted that the complainant was charged Rs. 8,300/- in bill dated 19.8.2017 which was reflected as arrears in bill dated 15.10.2017. This amount was charged on the basis of findings of AUDIT PARTY OF THE PSPCL to compensate the wrong refund of Rs. 8,300/- given to the consumer on 11.8.2016. This amount was charged on the basis of memo No. 91 dated 14.9.2016 of the INTERNAL AUDIT PARTY. It is submitted that this amount did not pertain to the charging of consumption of the period of the meter remained burnt. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal complaint.  

4. In support of his case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of bills and receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-23, copies of bills Ex.C-24 and Ex.C-25, copy of memo dated 28.3.2019 Ex.C-26, copy of receipt Ex.C-27, copy of letter of wrong refund Ex.C-28, copy of bill Ex.C-29, copy of receipt dated 24.10.2017 Ex.C-30, copy of receipt dated 24.6.2016 Ex.C-31 and closed the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed the rejoinder against the written version of opposite parties in which he reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. 

6. To rebut the case of complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Malkit Singh Ex.O.P-1.2.3/1, copy of letter dated 28.3.2019 Ex.O.P-1.2.3/2, copy of consumption data Ex.O.P.1.2.3/3, copy of wrong refunds Ex.O.P.1.2.3/4, copy of account statement Ex.O.P.1.2.3/5, copy of bill dated 21.6.2016 Ex.O.P.1.2.3/6, copy of refund entry Ex.O.P.1.2.3/7 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. 

8. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that the complainant is the consumer of opposite parties being the user of an electric connection installed at his house bearing account No. 3002012390 which was in the name of Late Sh. Sukhdev Chand Garg father of the complainant.  It is further argued that the complainant received notice vide memo dated 28.3.2019 Ex.C-26 vide which an illegal demand of Rs. 26,567/- for the period from 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016 and Rs. 8,600/- as arrears was demanded. The complainant has been paying the electricity consumption bills regularly and nothing is due. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for complainant that he has already paid the due amount for the period of 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016. It is further argued that the meter was burnt but the opposite parties failed to change the same and during this period he had been paying the bills whatsoever issued by the opposite parties. Further, the arrears were recovered by the opposite parties in subsequent bills dated 15.10.2017 for the period from 19.8.2017 to 15.10.2017 Ex.C-13.

9. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties argued that as per consumption data of the consumer electric meter was burnt from 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016 and the meter was replaced on 17.10.2016 vide MCO and the consumption of consumer was recorded NIL for the period 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016 as per consumption data. It is further argued that as per provisions of Claus 21.5.2 (a) of supply code 2014, account of consumer was overhauled on the basis of available consumption from 15.3.2015 to 27.11.2015 (total consumption 4550 units), which was adjusted to correspond to the period from 15.4.2015 to 16.10.2015 and this consumption amounted to 3701 units. It is argued that the bill of above said consumption was raised for Rs. 26,567/- vide memo No. 963 dated 28.3.2019 Ex.O.P.1.2.3/2 as per the rates of the electricity prevailing in the year 2016-17. It is further submitted that the complainant was charged Rs. 8,300/- in bill dated 19.8.2017 Ex.C-12 and this amount was charged on the basis of findings of AUDIT PARTY OF THE PSPCL to compensate the wrong refund of Rs. 8,300/- given to the consumer on 11.8.2016. 

10. In the present complaint, Ld. counsel for complainant has filed an application dated 12.3.2020 for seeking directions against the opposite parties to produce the record whereby Rs. 8,300/- was refunded to the complainant. In reply to the application, the opposite parties submitted that a bill dated 21.6.2016 was issued to the consumer for the period 15.4.2016 to 14.6.2016 for 1877 units and due to burnt meter this bill was issued on the basis of consumption of corresponding period of last year. But this bill was wrongly generated as consumption of last year was incorrectly calculated. This may be due to difference in bill issued as per spot billing machine and bill generated in the SAP system or clerical mistake. Then this bill dated 21.6.2016 was also deleted from the system i.e. amount charged to the account of consumer of Rs. 14,078/- and this bill was also reversed. Further, in rebuttal to this application the opposite parties placed on record copy of letter of wrong refunds dated 14.9.2016 Ex.O.P.1.2.3/4 of Rs. 8,300/- vide which it is mentioned that account has been revised with LXDXHXF instead of PYSM. The opposite parties alongwith reply to application also placed on record photocopy of account statement of complainant to show the credit of amount of Rs. 8,300/- in the account of complainant on 27.7.2016. In this account statement it is also shows that the bill dated 21.6.2016 for Rs. 14,080/- has been reversed. So, in view of the above said facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the present application dated 12.3.2020 has devoid of any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. 

11. Further, to corroborate the averments of opposite parties, Sh. Rana Amarjit Singh Revenue Accountant, Sub Division Suburban Barnala, made a statement dated 21.7.2020 which is as under:-

"stated that the bill dated 21.6.2016 was issued to consumer for Rs. 14,080/- on the basis of burnt meter. Against this bill a refund of Rs. 8,300/- was granted w.e.f. 27.7.2016 and this refund was not granted on rational basis. As a result of this internal auditor of the office vide letter dated 14.9.2016 Ex.O.P-4 issued advisory to charge this refund. As such this refund was charged and it was included in the bill issued to consumer on 19.8.2017. Incidentally the bill issued to consumer on 21.6.2016 was also reversed in the account w.e.f. 21.6.2016. As such double refund was posted in the account of consumer which is patently wrong. Due to reversal of bills issued to consumer no amount was charged to consumer for the period 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016. As a result of this office of Sub Division Suburban Barnala issued notice No. 963 dated 28.3.2019 Ex.O.P-2 for charging the consumer for this period for the amount of Rs. 26,567/-"

12. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the meter of the complainant was burnt and was replaced on 16.10.2016. It is further the case of the opposite parties that the consumption of consumer was recorded NIL for the period from 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016 as per consumption data Ex.O.P.1.2.3/5. It submitted by the opposite parties as per provisions of Clause 21.5.2 (a) of supply code 2014, the account of the consumer is overhauled for the period for which the meter remained burnt and on the basis of consumption of the corresponding period of the previous years. As such, the account was overhauled on the basis of available consumption from 15.3.2015 to 27.11.2015 (total consumption 4550 units) as mentioned in Ex.O.P.1.2.3/3 and the same was adjusted to correspond to the period from 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016 and this consumption amounted to 3701 units.

13. During arguments, the opposite parties submitted that the amount of Rs. 14,080/- has been raised to the consumer on the basis of burnt meter and against this bill a refund of Rs. 8,300/- was wrongly granted by the official of the opposite parties. But due to Internal Auditor of the office issued advisory to charge this refund, therefore the same was charged in the bill Ex.C-12. It is further submitted that the bill dated 21.6.2016 issued to the consumer was also reversed, as such double refund was wrongly posted in the account of consumer. Therefore, the opposite parties raised demand of Rs. 26,567/- for the said period from the complainant vide notice No. 963 dated 28.3.2019 Ex.O.P.1.2.3/2. We are of the view that the actual amount comes to the tune of Rs. 22,380/-, but the opposite parties claimed/demanded the amount of Rs. 26,567/- from the complainant. So, it might be possible that the opposite parties demanded the amount of Rs. 26,567/- including interest and other charges, for which there is no explanation from the side of opposite parties. 

14. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to place on record any record/receipt to prove that he has paid the bills to the opposite parties for the said period (i.e. 15.4.2016 to 16.10.2016). Further, in support of his case the complainant has miserably failed to place on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. 

15. However, it is observed that the concerned official of the opposite parties firstly reverse the amount of Rs. 8,300/- from the bill amounting to Rs. 14,080/- of the consumer and then the whole amount of Rs. 14,080/- (i.e. bill dated 21.6.2016) was reversed in the account of consumer. The above said entry of  Rs. 8,300/- was shown credited in the account statement of consumer which was placed on record by the opposite parties alongwith the reply to application. Further, lateron the Internal Auditor of the office  vide letter dated 14.9.2016 Ex.O.P1.2.3/4 found that the above said entry was wrongly reversed by the official concerned and the same was charged in the bill issued to consumer on 19.8.2017 Ex.C-12. It is observed that the concerned official of the opposite parties reversed the above said both entries of Rs. 8,300/- and then Rs. 14,080/- in the account of consumer in the absence of any written request from the side of complainant for the reasons best known to him. We are of the view that it has created undue physical as well as mental harassment to the complainant. Therefore, the opposite parties are directed to take departmental action against the erring official, as the such act of above said official has put the department into financial loss.  

16. So, in view of the above discussion, we dispose of the present complaint with the direction to the complainant to pay Rs. 8,300/- + Rs. 14,080/- to the opposite parties. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

  ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       4th Day of August, 2020 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu) Member