Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/124/2015

Parkash Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

In person

18 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.       :  124 of 06.11.2015

Date of Decision:                    :  18.03.2016

Parkash Kaur wife of Hukum Singh, through Satwinder Singh attorney S/o of Hukum Singh R/o Opposite Soni Gas Agency, Balachaur-Chandigarh Road, Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1.       Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala.

2.       Sub Divisional Officer, PSPCL, No.1, Balachaur

3.       XEN, PSPCL, Garhshankar-Anandpur Sahib Road, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

                                                                    …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.SUSHMA HANDOO, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Satwinder Singh, Attorney

For OPs                         :         Sh.S.S. Garcha, Advocate

 

ORDER

          PER SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

1.       Complainant, a domestic consumer of electricity with account No.N21UC211363X and meter account No.10791215, filed this complaint under Consumer Protection Act, by claiming that her electric meter, being defective, stopped running in January 2015 and that fact was brought to the notice of meter reader.  Thereafter, a repaired meter was installed in lieu of the old defective meter.  No tempering with the defective meter was done by complainant.  Seals of that meter were intact.  Defect in the meter took place due to negligence of officials of OPs.  Thereafter, OP No.2 called upon complainant to deposit bill amount of Rs.7,470/-, the calculations qua which was done on average reading basis.  In August/September 2015, OPs sent bill of amount of Rs.33,510/-, as per which Rs.13,808/- were payable on account of actual consumption, but Rs.19,702/- was mentioned as additional billed amount.  In this way an amount of Rs.19,702/- illegally sought to be charged from complainant, due to which she contacted officials of OPs and at their insistence 1/3rd of the amount was deposited for saving disconnection of the electric meter.  Rs.20,377/- were deposited under pressure by  complainant.  Prayer made for quashing the bill amount of Rs.19,702/-.  Compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment even claimed. 

2.       In written statement filed by Ops, it is pleaded inter alia as if complaint in present form not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi and she has suppressed the material facts.  Admittedly, the domestic connection is in name of complainant.  The meter installed at premises of complainant went out of order in January 2015, due to which “D” code bill on average basis of 1044 units was sent.  Meter of complainant was changed on 27.01.2015.  In June 2015, the account of complainant was amended as per Regulation 21.5.2 of the Supply Code.  Bill for consumption was prepared on the basis of the consumption during corresponding month of July 2013, September 2013, November 2013 and January 2014 for claiming the amount for billing period of July 2014, September-2014 and January 2015.  A difference of amount of Rs.19,704/- was sought to be charged from complainant in bill for month of October-2015.  This amount alleged to be charged as per rules.  Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.       Complainant through her Representative-Sh.Satwinder Singh tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A of Representative alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and then representative of complainant closed the evidence.  On the other hand counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OPA of Sh.Salinder Paul, SDO PSPCL alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and then closed the evidence.

4.       Written arguments not submitted by counsel for the OPs, but oral arguments only addressed by both the parties. Record gone through minutely. 

5.       Bill Ex.C-1 makes mention of disputed amount of Rs.19,702/- as sundry charges.  Dispute is raised regarding this demanded amount of Rs.19,702/- only.  Admittedly, no separate bill for claiming this amount of Rs.19,702/- was issued, but this amount included as sundry charges amount in the current bill. 

6.       As per Instruction 93.1 contained in Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, First Edition updated till 31.3.2011 by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, Patiala, in case a bill is to be raised on account of defect in the metering equipment or unauthorized use of electricity etc, then separate bills has to be issued containing complete details of the charges.  Copy of the relevant instructions under which charges have been levied has also to be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of cases by Consumer Forums.  No such separate bill shown to be sent to complainant and nor copy of the relevant instructions under which charges to be levied, shown to be sent to complainant and as such there is violation of this Rule.

7.       Admittedly, no separate notice was issued to the complainant before raising demand of sundry charges of Rs.19,702/- through impugned bill, despite the fact that this demand raised on account of defective metering equipment. 

8.       Virtually overhauling of the bill contemplated by OPs due to inaccurate metering equipment.  As and when the same to be done, then defective meter has to be got tested from the ME Lab, so as to give chance to the consumer to challenge the testing report and see that test is conducted as per norms.  As per regulation 21.4 (d) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 (hereinafter referred as Regulations), in case the testing of a meter, removed from consumer premises, to take place in the laboratory, then consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing at least seven days in advance.  No such intimation in writing shown to be sent to complainant.  Removal of electric meter from premises of complainant took place due to defect therein and as such in view of Regulation 21.4 (d), copy of test report should have been supplied to complainant.  That copy of test report even not shown to be supplied to complainant and nor her signatures obtained at the time of packing the meter.  So, OP did not comply with the procedure laid down by the above said Regulations. 

9.       Regulation 21.5.1 of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulation 2014 provides the procedure for overhauling accounts of the consumer in case the meter on testing is found to be beyond the limits of accuracy.  This regulation provides that overhauling of the electricity charges to be done in accordance with the test results of the meter.  Procedure for testing of inaccurate meters laid in Regulation 21.3.6 of these Regulations, which is the same as is the procedure mentioned in the above Regulations 21.4 (d) etc.  That procedure not complied with at all because copy of the test results not supplied to the complainant and nor she was informed about the date of testing.  So much so evidence is not led to show that testing of the alleged defective meter took place at any time.  Being so the charges are claimed on arbitrary basis. 

10.     As per Regulation 30.1.2 of The Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 (effective from 01.01.2015), the bill-cum-notice for arrears in the case of under assessment of the charges levied as a result of checking  etc shall be initially tendered and shall not be clubbed in the current electricity bill.  That arrear bill-cum-notice to briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrear alongwith calculation detail of such arrears.  Details of the arrears not shown to be supplied to the complainant. Rather, the arrears of the previous bill clubbed in the current electricity bill Ex.C-1 and as such bill Ex.C-1 even has not been prepared as per Regulation 30.1.2 referred above. 

11.     As per Regulation 21.5.1 of Electricity Supply Code and related matter Regulation 2007, if a consumer meter on testing is found beyond the limits of accuracy, then the consumer bill shall be overhauled by computing the same in accordance with the test results for a period not exceeding six months immediately proceedings the date of test etc.  Likewise as per Regulation 21.5.2 of these Regulations, the accounts of consumer to be overhauled/billed for the period meter remained defective/dead stop subject to maximum period of six months by taking into consideration the energy consumption in the corresponding period of previous year etc.  So the overhauling of the bill amount for the defective/dead stop meter or the inaccurate meter to be done for a period not exceeding six months immediately proceedings the date of defect in the meter. That overhauling in this case done for period of 8 months because calculation on average basis for period of July 2014 to January 2015 done by keeping in view the corresponding period from July 2013 to January 2014.  So violation of these Regulations even committed through calculation placed on record as Ex.OP-2.

12.     As per Regulation 21.5.3 of the above referred Regulations, any evidence provided by the consumer about condition of working and/or occupancy of the concerned premises during the period which might have bearing on consumption of electricity consumption shall however be taken into consideration by the distribution licensee.  Opportunity of leading such evidence not shown to be afforded to complainant and nor complainant shown to be heard before raising the demand of impugned sundry charges of Rs.19,702/- and as such there is violation of principles of natural justice and Rules and Regulations referred above.  As PSPCL is a Semi Government Body and as such it must follow the rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice before raising the demands like this.  So, the demand in question being illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and violative of principle of natural justice deserves to be quashed.               

13.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and recovery of sundry charges amounting to Rs.19,702/- sought through bill Ex.C-1 is quashed.  However, liberty is given to OPs to duly assess the chargeable amount, but after notice in writing to complainant and after hearing her.  Speaking order will be passed by OPs qua due amount with intimation in writing to complainant.  That order must be passed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, by following the Rules and Regulations of PSPCL and Principles of natural justice as mentioned above.  Litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- and compensation of Rs.1,000/- more is allowed in favour of complainant and against the OPs.

14.     The amount already deposited as per order dated 04.12.2015 of this Forum (if any) out of disputed amount be adjusted in future consumption bills of complainant. 

15.     Compliance of direction of compensation and litigation expenses be made by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of this order.      

16.     The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  18.03.2016

 

  

(Sushma Handoo)                                                        (G.K. Dhir)

Member                                                                        President                       

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.