ਵਿਵਾਦ ਨਿਪਟਾਰਾ ਕੇਸ

ਵਿਵਾਦ ਨਿਪਟਾਰਾ ਕੇਸ

ਕੇਸ ਹਵਾਲਾ ਨੰਬਰ :
ਕੇਸ ਹਵਾਲਾ ਨੰਬਰ: O1206
1.  ਕੇਸ ਹਵਾਲਾ ਨੰਬਰ O1206
1.  ਉੱਪ ਮੰਡਲ ਦਫਤਰ CITY EAST LUDHIANA/DS S. NAGAR (SPL) DIVN./COMM. S. NAGAR (SPL)
2.  ਖਪਤਕਾਰ CS01/0068 of Sh/ Ms Tarsem Lal
3.  ਕੇਸ ਦਾਖਲ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਮਿਤੀ 2012-09-07
4.  ਵਰਨਣ Average Charged
5.  ਫੈਸਲਾ The case as explained by the P.O. is that the petitioner is having an electric connection of 35.46 KW in NRS category. The meter of the consumer recorded 17340 units consumption in the month of 11/2009. The consumer challenged the bill as well as the working of the meter after depositing the challenging fees of Rs 450/- vide receipt No.546/6066 dated 09-12-2009. The MCO was issued on 24-12-2009 vide MCO No.16523 and the meter was changed in the month of February-2010. The meter was tested in ME Lab on 20-05-2010 and according to the report, the results of the testing were found within the permissible limits and the working of the meter was found to be O.K. During reading in the month of 03/2010, 04/2010 and 05/2010, F, F and C codes were recorded respectively in the readings record and the computer raised a bill on the average basis as per prevailing practice in case of F code and C code cases. The above said meter which was installed in the month of February -2010 again became defective and it was replaced with healthy meter in the month of 12/2010 vide MCO No.60657/0926 dated 13-12-2010. The defective meter was taken to ME Lab where it was found to be burnt as per ME lab report. The Audit party overhauled the accounts of the consumer vide audit note No.8 dated 16-05-2011 and revised the average bills already issued for the months of 04/2010, 05/2010 on the basis of the actual consumption recorded on the meter and additional bill for Rs 70171/- was raised to the consumer. Similarly, the Audit party revised bills for the months of 09/2010, 10/2010 and 11/2010 on the basis of the average of the bills of the corresponding months of the previous year i.e. 09/2009, 10/2009 & 11/2009 and a bill for Rs 1,31,940/- was raised on this account. The total amount charged to the consumer was Rs 2,02,111/-. The consumer challenged the above amount before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (DCDRF) vide complaint No.685 dated 23-09-2011, which was decided on 26-03-2012. According to the decision of the DCDRF, Ludhiana the amount charged to the consumer i.e. Rs 2,28,007/- (including surcharge) was quashed. However, the PSPCl was given liberty to reissue the bill with fresh notice to the complainant giving the details of the amount charged and to provide an opportunity to him to explain his grievance against the amount charged and take further action according to the law. In compliance to the above said order of the DCDRF, a fresh notice was issued to the consumer vide memo.1801 dated 27-06-2012 and on the request of the consumer, an opportunity for personal hearing was afforded to him on 16-07-2012 by the Dy.CE/Op, City East Circle, Ludhiana in his office. But the consumer was not satisfied and he was further asked to appear before the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee (ZDSC) and CE/Op, Central, Ludhiana, allowed his case vide Memo.No.9608 dated 07-09-2012. The consumer presented his case through his expert representative Sh.B.C.Shiv. The petitioner filed his detailed petition before the ZDSC on 24-11-2012, wherein he made the following prayers:- “In view of the facts explained above, it is requested that the following genuine points may please be considered:- i) Actual Consumption recorded by the Meter for the month of 4/2010 (7691 units) & 5/2010 (5692 units) may be charged. On the bill wrongly/inadvertently mentioned on average basis/MMC etc. ii) Similarly, actual consumption recorded by the meter for the month of 9/2010 (5890 units) and 10/2010 (2131 units) may be charged , because the display of the meter is OK during this period. iii) Consumption for the month of 11/2009 recordeed is 17340. Meter has jumped during this period which is abnormal, very high consumption for NRS load of 35.46 KW, which may be charged on the basis of load(NRS) and other connected load factors etc. iv) Consumption for 11/2010 (no display on the meter), may be charged on the reading if available in ME Lab Report or may be charged on the load basis etc. v) PSPCL has taken more than 5 months period to replace the defective meter on consumer’s request) (violation of Supply Code). -3- vi) Petitioner may also be compensated for unnecessary harassment/mentral tension as deemded fit by Hon’ble ZDSc please. vii) Excess amount already recovered may please be refunded with interest.” The case came up for hearing before the ZDSC on 03-10-2012, 26-10-2012, 16-11-2012 and finally decided on 03-12-2012. After perusal of the record and after going through the history of the case and as explained above by the P.O. the committee deliberated and decided the case as follows:- The Committee observed that regarding the revised bills for the month of 04/2010 and 05/2010, the audit party has overhauled the account on the basis of the actual consumption recorded on the meter i.e. 7691 units in the month of 03/2010 and 5692 units in the month of 05/2010, which is alright in accordance with law, being a bill of the actual consumption recorded on the meter and this is also in accordance with the prayer made by the petitioner in para No.(i) above, therefore, this part of the bill amounting to Rs 70,171/- is alright and does not need any revision and hence chargeable. The revised bills charged to the consumer for the month of 09/2011, 10/2011 and 11/2011, does not appear to be in order, because the account has been overhaulled on the basis of consumption recorded in the corresponding months of the previous year i.e. 09/2010, 10/2010 and 11/2010, but the consumer has already challenged the readings recorded on the meter in the month of 11/2010, which, according to him is exhorbitant i.e. 17310 units and the consumer has challenged the bill for this month and dispute of the consumer started from this bill. So, the consumption recorded in the month of 09/2010, 10/2010 and 11/2010 may not be taken as base period as it is already challenged by the consumer, alleging it to be exhorbitant as compared to his normal consumption. Therefore, the Committee decided that the account of the consumer for the month of 09/2011, 10/2011 and 11/2011 may be overhauled on the basis of consumption recorded during the 3 months prior to the defective period i.e. for the month of 06/2010, 7799 units, for the month of 07/2010, 7949 units and for the month of 09/2010, 8001 units may be taken as base period and bills may be revised on the fresh basis as decided above and & bill may be reissued. The detail of the calculations as well as the Speaking order passed by the ZDSC may also be sent to the consumer for his information please.
6.  ਫੈਸਲੇ ਦੀ ਮਿਤੀ 2012-12-03
ਸੁਣਵਾਈ/ ਪੇਸ਼ੀਆਂ
Page 1/1
 
Sr Noਸੁਣਵਾਈ ਦੀ ਮਿਤੀਵਰਨਣ
1 Fri 16, Nov 2012  Sh. Tarsem Lal attended the meeting & requested for deferring the case, as he could not prepare the case due to death of close relative. The case was deferred.

ਜਰੂਰੀ ਸੂਚਨਾ: ਇਹ ਸੁਵਿਧਾ ਸਿਰਫ ਤੁਹਾਡੀ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਹਿੱਤ ਹੈ, ਉਪਰੋਕਤ ਆਰਟੀਕਲ ਨੂੰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨੀ ਸਲਾਹ ਨਾ ਮੰਨਿਆ ਜਾਵੇ, ਸਹੀ ਅਤੇ ਪੂਰੀ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਲੈਣ ਵਾਸਤੇ ਸਬੰਧਤ ਦਫਤਰ ਨਾਲ ਸੰਪਰਕ ਕਰੋ ਜੀ|