Punjab

Sangrur

CC/323/2016

Ranbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.M.D. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Inderjeet Singh Khangura

09 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  323

                                                Instituted on:    11.03.2016

                                                Decided on:       09.09.2016

 

Ranbir Singh son of Surjit Singh, aged about 45 years, resident of village Gaggarpur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through its C.M.D, The Mall, Patiala.

 2.    Assistant Executive Engineer, P.S.P.C.L. Sub Division, Mehlan, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Inderjit Singh Khangura, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Ms.Rajni Gandhi, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Ranbir Singh,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained one electricity connection from the OPs bearing account number 593CH251208F with a sanctioned load of 3.24 KW. It is further stated that the complainant has been using the electricity connection in question and paying the bills regularly to the OPs. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 29.02.2016 for Rs.25,798/- and after receiving the bill in question, the complainant approached the Ops for withdrawal of the excess amount and to charge the bill as per the actual consumption, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.25,798/- raised in the bill dated 29.02.2016 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts.  On merits, it is admitted that the connection in question is running in the name of the complainant, as such he is a consumer of the OPs. It is further admitted that the bill in question was issued to the complainant. But, it is further stated that the burnt  meter of the complainant was changed on 16.5.2015 and after that the same was checked in the ME laboratory and the amount of recovery was accordingly calculated. It is stated that the amount has been rightly charged from the complainant. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of receipt, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-6 copies of bills and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit, Ex.OP/2 copy of consumption data, Ex.OP-3 copy of ME laboratory report, Ex.OP/4 copy of store challan, Ex.OP/5 copy of MCO and Ex.OP/6 copy of ledger and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact the connection in question is running in the name of the complainant, as such, he is a consumer of the OPs under the connection in question. In the present case the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 29.02.2016 for Rs.25,798/-, whereby the Ops have demanded an amount of Rs.24,343/- on account of old balance, which is said to be wrong and illegal.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the amount has been charged as per the ME laboratory report checking of the burnt meter  But, the stand of the learned counsel for the complainant is that though the electricity meter of the complainant was replaced by the OPs, but the same was never packed and sealed in a card board box nor the same was checked in the ME laboratory in the presence of the complainant or his representative nor the complainant was ever called for at the time of checking of the electricity meter in question, as such he has prayed for quashing the disputed demand of Rs.24,343/-. 

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the copies of the electricity bills, which are on record as Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6, but no where in the old bills the Ops have shown the alleged demand of Rs.24,343/- due towards the complainant,  whereas in the present case, the OPs have shown the disputed demand of Rs.24,343/- in the bill dated 29.02.2016 as old balance, which is unacceptable by us as it is not shown by the Ops that after removal of the old meter, the complainant was ever called for in the ME laboratory at the time of checking the electricity meter in question.   We have also perused the copy of meter change order dated 8.5.2015, Ex.OP-5, but it nowhere contains the signatures of the complainant or his representative to show that the meter in question was changed in his presence. Further no copy of the ME laboratory report has been produced by the Ops to show that the electricity meter in question was checked or the complainant ever called to come present in the ME laboratory for  checking of the meter in his presence.    It is worth mentioning here that as per Sales Regulation number 71.2.2, the removed meters should be sent to the ME laboratory promptly after removal, but in no case it should be delayed beyond a period of fifteen days from the date of removal of the meter from the consumers premises.  While sending the challenged meters to the ME laboratory, this fact must be clearly indicated on the MCO and AE/AEE ME be requested for intimation of test results at the earliest.  It is further stated that the whole process should in no case take more than a month.  But in the present case, the Ops have themselves violated their own sales regulation number 71.2.2 by not getting tested the electricity meter of the complainant from the ME Laboratory. There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why they did not got checked the electricity meter in question immediately after its removal on 08.05.2015.  Under the circumstances, we feel that the OPs cannot make the complainant liable for their own wrongs and further the complainant cannot be compelled to pay such a huge amount of Rs.24,343/- on the basis of the ME Laboratory.

 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the removed meter in question vide MCO, Ex.OP/5 was not packed and sealed as per the instructions contained in commercial circular number 8/99, which provides that as per the existing instructions contained in para 2 ( c) of CC number 45/97 dated 17.12.1997, it is mandatory that all meters removed against any MCO are to be sent to ME laboratories, in the sealed card box duly signed by the concerned PSEB officers/officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case, consumer refused to sign the meter test results/report, such meters shall be kept in the sealed box by the OP.S/Divn. till the final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Dispute Settlement Committee or Civil Courts, such sealed meter shall be returned to the ME laboratories. Similar procedure is to be adopted in case meters sealed by the Enforcement Agencies/Operation Organization in theft cases.”  But, in the present case, no such instructions have been followed by the Ops rather the same have been violated by the own officers/officials of the OPs.  There is nothing mentioned in the written reply of the OPs that whether the meter in question was packed in the cardboard box and thereafter it was sealed and signed by the complainant and officer/officials of the OPs.    The electricity meter in question was neither replaced in the presence of the consumer nor his representative as is evident from the copy of MCO, Ex.OP/2.  In Tarsem Singh versus Punjab State Electricity Board 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 584 (P&H), it has been held that checking of the defective meters should be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative.  A notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date, time and place of testing of meter.  Procedure prescribed to this effect in the Punjab State Electricity Board’s Commercial circulars number 45/98 and 8/99 is mandatory.  But, in the present case, there is no explanation that why such instructions as contained in the commercial circular number 8/99 were not adhered to by the OPs.  In these circumstances, we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

 

8.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.24,343/- raised against the complainant vide bill dated  29.02.2016, Ex.C-3.  The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.         

 

 

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 9, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member