DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 35 of 1.2.2016
Decided on: 16.02.2017
Sadiq Mohd. Son of Bir Mohd. Resident of Dhandial Road, Village Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. H.O., The Mall, Patiala, through its M.D.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL Urban, Patran.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh Asheen Khan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Harkirat Singh Dhaliwal, Adv. counsel for the
Opposite parties.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Sadiq Mohd. has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To withdraw the letter dtd.29.5.2015 and not to raise any kind of demand of the same from him and to issue the correct bill against the bill dated 22.12.2015
- To award Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for causing mental agony and harassment alongwith the costs of the complaint
- To grant any other relief , which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is holder of domestic electric connection bearing A/c No.CF-62/1546, installed at his house. He has been paying the electricity bills regularly. In the month of June/July, the old meter installed at his premises was shifted out the house and a new meter was installed. The old meter was neither packed in a cardboard box nor the meter was sealed in his presence. His signatures were also not obtained .Vide memo No.772 dated 29.5.2015 a demand to the tune of Rs.15,691/- was raised by the opposite parties on the basis of the report of the audit party. The alleged demand is illegal, null and void and not binding upon him. The detail of the period for which the audit party has checked the record has not been mentioned. He time and again approached and requested the opposite parties for the withdrawal of the letter dated 29.5.2015 but to no effect. Rather the opposite parties issued bill dated 22.12.2015 for Rs.25,960/- . He requested the O.Ps. for the correction of the bill but O.Ps. paid no heed to his request and they asked to deposit the amount, failing which the connection shall be disconnected. He also got sent a legal notice dated 8.1.2015 to the O.Ps. for the withdrawal of the letter dated 29.5.2015 but all in vain. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and he is suffering from mental agony harassment.
3. On being put to notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written version having admitted that electric connection bearing account No.CF-62/1546 has been installed at the residence of the complainant in his name. It is further admitted that in the month of June,2014 the old meter was replaced vide MCO No.50677/53 dated 5.6.2014 and a new meter was installed with 001 unit. At the time of removal of the old meter, the reading of the same was 17014units. It is admitted that vide letter No.772 dated 29.5.2015 a demand of Rs.15,691/- was raised on the basis of audit party report. It is stated that the bills for the month of June, August, October and December/2014 and February /20-15 were sent on average basis of ‘F’ code. The bills sent on average basis for the months of June/2014 for 166 units to the tune of Rs.895/-, August/2014 for 158 units for a sum of Rs.832/-, October/2014, for 166 units to the tune of Rs.874/-, December/2014 for 172 units to the tune of Rs.906/- and February, 2015 for 172 units to the tune of Rs.913/- were deposited by the complainant. It is further stated that the bills were sent on average basis due to technical mistake whereas the meter was working properly at that time. The lapse was pointed out by the audit party vide audit report No.443 dated 5.5.2015. The actual reading of the old meter was 16835 units and reading of the new meter was 224 units during the bill of June,2014. But at the time of removal of old meter, reading of the same was 17014 units and reading of new meter was 001 unit meaning thereby that 17014-16835=179 units were due against the old meter and 224-1=223 units were chargeable as consumption of new meter. So the total consumption of the complainant for the month of June, 2014 was 179+223=402 units. Similarly, the actual reading of the meter during the month of August, 2014 was 224 to 1109 units and consumption was 885 units, whereas he was charged only for 158 units. Likewise the actual reading of the meter during the bill of October,2014 was 1109 to 1914 units and consumption was 805 units but he was charged for 166 units. Similarly the actual reading during the bill of |December, 2014 was 1914 to 2405 units and consumption was 491 units but he was charged for 172 units and the reading of the meter during the bill of February,2015 was 2405 to 2895 units and consumption was 490 units but he was charged for units. It is stated that the already charged units of above said bills were deducted from the actual consumed units and the demand of difference of Rs.15,691/- was raised in letter no.772 dated 29.5.2015. It is admitted that the complainant received bill dated 22.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.25,690/- and an earlier bill in which said demand of Rs.15,691/- was raised and he was explained regarding the imposition of the amount of Rs.15,691/-The complainant did not deposit the said amount and as such the same was shown in the bill. There is no deficiency of service on their part. The Ops denied all other allegations leveled against them and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and his closed the evidence.
On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the O.Ps. tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Sucha Singh Kanda, SDO alongwith documents Exs. OP1 to OP8 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that he was paying the electricity consumption bills regularly as issued by the Ops. In the month of June/July old meter installed in his house was shifted out of his house and a new meter was installed. Vide memo No.772 dated 29.5.2015, the Ops raised a demand of Rs.15,691/- on the basis of report of the audit party. As the demand raised by the Ops was illegal, he requested the Ops for withdrawal of the demand notice. However, Ops again, sent a bill dated 22.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.25,960/-.He requested the Ops for the correction of the bill but they instead of acceding to his request, told him that if the said amount is not deposited by him then they will disconnect the electricity connection of his house.
7. The ld. Counsel for the Ops submitted that infact the electric meter installed for the supply of the electricity to the house of the complainant was working properly However, due to technical mistake , the Ops sent the bills for the month of June/2014 to December/2014 and February/2015 on average on the basis of ‘F’ code . The lapse was pointed out by the audit party vide its report No.443 dated 54.5.2015 and . The Ops after deducting the amount already paid by the complainant on the average basis have raised the demand for the actual consumption of electricity for a sum of Rs.15,691/- vide memo No.772 dated 29.5.2015.Since the electricity has been consumed by the complainant, the complainant is liable to pay the said amount.
8. It is admitted fact that the meter installed for the supply of the electricity to the house of the complainant was working properly but the Ops mistakenly issued the bills for the billing cycle of June/2014 to February/2015 on average basis instead of on the basis of actual consumption. This fact came to the notice of the Ops on the report of audit party and they raised the demand of Rs.15,691/- i.e. differential amount for the units actually consumed by the complainant and the amount already charged from him on average basis. To corroborate this fact the Ops have placed on record the copies of ledgers Exs.OP3 to Ex.OP8 and the copy of the audit party report Ex.OP2. No doubt the complainant is liable for the payment of the electricity consumed by him but at the same time this fact cannot be ignored that due to the mistake of the Ops, the complainant must not be burdened to pay such a huge amount of Rs.15,691/- in onego and he shall certainly be allowed to make the payment of the said amount in installments. It may be stated that due to mistake of the O.Ps. complainant has been put into trouble. Therefore, Ops. are liable to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony ,physical harassment and for compelling him to file the instant complaint for redressal.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we disposed of the complaint with a direction to the Ops to charge the amount of Rs.15,691/- from the complainant in six equal installments alongwith the bills to be issued by the O.Ps. subsequently. They are also directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation inclusive of costs, to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter, the file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:16.02.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
