DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No.: 132 of 2017
Date of Institution : 19.09.2017
Date of Decision : 25.05.2018
Rajul Kumar son of Sh. Sham Lal, resident of House No. 121, 22 Acre, Barnala, presently working as Private Typist at Courts Complex, Barnala, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer (Sub Urban), Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Barnala.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Sub Urban), Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Present: Sh. Gurpreetpal Singh counsel for complainant.
Ms. Bhawana Markanda counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
(ORDER BY MS. VANDNA SIDHU MEMBER):
As per complaint No. 132 of 2017, the complainant is the consumer of electricity services rendered by opposite parties having Consumer No. L61NB481038K and Account No. 3002014751 at his chamber situated at Courts Complex Barnala. The electricity meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant.
2. It is further submitted that the complainant was astonished when he received the electricity bill dated 12.6.2017 issued by the opposite parties in which old meter reading was shown as 152 on 15.4.2017 and new meter reading was shown as 1972 on 12.6.2017 and consumption was shown as 1820 units which was wrong and bill amount was mentioned as Rs. 14,580/-. The said chamber of the complainant is small and consumption is very less per month. The complainant requested the opposite party No. 3 for taking the correct reading of the said meter then the opposite party No. 3 assured that the rectified bill will be sent to the complainant after taking correct reading and also told by the opposite party No. 3 to the complainant not to pay the bill of Rs. 14,580/- till then.
3. It is further submitted that despite the said request and assurance given by opposite party No. 3 the complainant again received the electricity bill dated 21.8.2017 for the amount of Rs. 17,110/- in which old meter reading has been mentioned as 1972 and new meter reading has been mentioned as 2221 and consumption has been shown as 249 units which shows that the bills being sent by the opposite parties are false and fictitious. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.8.2017 to the opposite party No. 3 to clarify the matter and to withdraw the bill of alleged amount of Rs. 14,580/- but no reply was sent to the complainant. The opposite parties did not rectify the electricity bill of complainant.
4. It is further submitted that previously the electricity meter of the complainant was defective and bills were being sent on average basis. The complainant many times requested the opposite parties to change the said meter and also sent registered letter for this purpose. The complainant received the bill dated 15.12.2016 for the amount of Rs. 12,2,40/- in which old meter reading was mentioned as 0000 and new meter reading was mentioned as 1521 and consumption was shown as 1521 units which was wrong. The complainant sent a letter dated 16.12.2016 to rectify the bill but to no effect. Then the complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.1.2017 to withdraw the bill dated 15.12.2016 and only then the opposite parties rectified the bill and got paid the correct bill from the complainant. After that the complainant received the electricity bill dated 17.2.2017 for the amount of Rs. 600/- in which old meter reading was mentioned again as 00 and new meter reading was mentioned as 70 and consumption of 70 units was shown which was paid by the complainant. After than the opposite parties sent bill of 152 units which was also paid by the complainant. So the bill dated 12.6.2017 sent by the opposite parties is false and fictitious. In this way, there is deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties and complainant has suffered agony, pain and inconvenience. Hence the present complaint is filed.
Relief.-
The opposite parties may be directed to withdraw the bill dated 12.6.2017 amounting to Rs. 14,580/- and to re-issue the correct electricity bill after rectification of the same by taking correct meter reading on spot and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- due to physical pain, mental agony, financial loss and inconvenience and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint as the impugned bill has been prepared on the basis of actual consumption of electricity. Further, the complaint is not maintainable because the connection is being used for commercial purpose. The complaint is false and frivolous.
6. On merits, it is submitted that the Account number of the complainant is NB 48/1038K-CA No. 3002014751 and it is admitted that the meter is installed outside the premises of complainant. It is further submitted that meter reading was 152 on 15.5.2017 and meter reading was 1972 on 12.6.2017 so consumption was 1820 units and bill has been issued accordingly. There is no defect in the bill and same is recoverable from the complainant as he has not paid the amount by due date. It is denied that opposite party No. 3 assured the complainant to rectify the bill. It is further submitted that next bill for the period from 12.6.2017 to 21.8.2017 was prepared and old reading was 1972 and new reading was 2221 so consumption was 249 units and bill dated 21.8.2017 was sent for Rs. 17,330/- including arrear of previous bill and consumption of current bill. This bill is also based on actual consumption and complainant is also liable to pay the same. It is further submitted that as per office record bill dated 15.12.2016 for Rs. 12,240/- was sent due to technical reason. Due to change of meter the bill for the period from 18.10.2016 to 12.2.2017 was sent on C code and it was for Rs. 70/- only. It is admitted that complainant sent a legal notice for rectifying the bill but as there was nothing to rectify the bill so no reply was given. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and correct bill based on actual consumption have been sent. Further, the complainant is using the electricity for commercial purpose so he does not fall within the ambit of consumer. Lastly they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
7. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 12.6.2017 Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 21.8.2017 Ex.C-3, copy of legal notice dated 24.8.2017 Ex.C-4, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-5, copy of letter dated 2.12.2015 Ex.C-6, copy of letter dated 16.12.2016 Ex.C-7, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-8, copy of bill dated 15.12.2016 Ex.C-9, copy of legal notice dated 11.1.2017 Ex.C-10, copies of postal receipts Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-13, copy of bill dated 17.2.2017 Ex.C-14, copy of bill dated 15.4.2017 Ex.C-15 and closed the evidence.
8. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Jagjit Singh Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Pardeep Sharma Assistant Engineer Ex.OP-2, copy of meter reading unit Ex.OP-3, copy of Account Statement Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by both the parties.
10. As per Ex.C-2 bill dated 12.6.2017 of Rs. 14,580/- and consumption of units 1972, bill type is normal and this is bill of Cycle-2. Previous units of this bill 152 and this is bill from 15.4.2017 to 12.6.2017. Ex.C-9 of dated 15.12.2016 and total bill of Rs. 12,240/-. Ex.C-15 is of bill dated 15.4.2017 of Rs. 660/- but Ex.C-2 is showing total consumption of units 1820 and bill is issued by the opposite parties for units of 1972. According to Ex.C-2 net SOP is 12168 net ED 1591 Octroi 182 total payment is Rs. 13,941/- after including infrastructure development cess of Rs. 612 and total rent of Rs. 24/- total charges of Ex.C-2 is Rs. 14,577/- and late payment charges is Rs. 14,580/-. As per consumption by the consumer but the complainant has not paid the amount by due date. Further, bill from 12.6.2017 to 21.8.2017 is also issued to the complainant having net SOP 14403 net ED 2415 and total charges about this bill are Rs. 17,109/- and late payment charges is Rs. 17,110/-. Ex.C-9 is not a readable document which is brought on record by the complainant. According to Ex.OP-2, Assistant Engineer PSPCL Sub Urban Sub Division, Barnala, deposed in his affidavit that as per office record bill dated 15.12.2016 for Rs. 12,240/- was not sent due to technical reasons. No bill showing meter reading to be 1521 was ever sent to the complainant. Due to change of meter the bill for the period 18.10.2016 to 12.2.2017 was sent on 'C' code means meter changed and it was for Rs. 70/- only. Furthermore, he deposed in his affidavit that Ex.OP-4 is statement, showing payments by the complainant and Ex.OP-3 copy of meter reading record. The complainant never visited the office of opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 3 never assured the complainant to rectify the bill by taking correct meter reading or told him not to pay the bill till then. As per record Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3 and Ex.OP-2 the bill of Rs. 14,577/- from period of 15.4.2017 to 12.6.2017. In this bill it was showed that previous reading is 152 and current reading is 1972 on 12.6.2017 and this bill was not paid by the complainant. So both readings of Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 are concerned with alleged Account No. 3002014751. Moreover, Ex.C-3 which is for the period of 12.6.2017 to 21.8.2017 in which previous reading was shown 1972 units and current reading was showed by the meter is 2221 units total consumption of units are 249 and this Ex.C-3 was sent for Rs. 17,109/- and with late payment of Rs. 17,110/-. Ex.C-3 sent with including arrears of previous bill and consumption of current bill. Ex.C-2, Ex.C-3 which are easily readable documents and Ex.C-9 is not a properly readable document.
11. According to written arguments filed by opposite parties it was specifically mentioned that due to change of meter the bill for the period 18.10.2016 to 12.2.2017 was sent on C code (means meter changed) and it was for Rs. 70/- only. So, Ex.C-2 itself proved that previous consumption of alleged meter was 152 units not of 1521 units.
12. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed. However no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
25th Day of May 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
