Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/95/2015

Salochan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh Kataria

14 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.       :  95 of 24.08.2015

Date of Decision:                    :  14.01.2016

Salochan Singh Son of Sh.Kaka Singh son of Ram Chand Resident of Ward No.11, Balachaur, Tehsil Balachaur District SBS Nagar.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1.       The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala Tehsil & District Patiala.

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Balachaur, Teshil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

                                                                    …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.Suresh Kataria, advocate

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

 

ORDER

          PER SH.G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

1.       Complainant, a permanent resident of Balachaur, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) by alleging that complainant took shop situate at Nawanshahr Road Balachaur, on rent from one Pushpa Devi Wife of Late Sukhwinder Singh R/o Main Bus Stand, Balachaur.  Electric Meter connection No.N21UC190035N in the said shop is in the name of husband of landlord of complainant, but complainant paying the bills of electricity regularly.  In June, complainant approached Op No.1 with request that light of his shop is not working properly and thereafter OP No.2 disclosed that there is problem in the electric meter, due to which same has to be replaced with new meter within one week.  Complainant was supplied with the copy of electricity bill for the month of June-July 2015 and he was astonished to see that Rs.14830/- charged from him.  Thereafter, an application was filed with OP No.2, who replied that due to change of meter, the bill sent to complainant on average basis w.e.f. July 2014 by taking the load as 0.50 KW in July 2014, but 1.92KW in July 2015.  That action of OPs is alleged to unreasonable because the consumption of the complainant for the last six months after extension of load was of 467, 477, 314, 202, 195 and 316 units.  So levy of 14830/- through bill is an illegal act of OPs, but complainant deposited the said amount, being a law abiding citizen.  Thereafter, complainant filed an application for calling upon OPs to refund the amount of Rs.14830/-, but that request not accepted and that is why by pleading deficiency in service, directions sought to OPs to pay Rs.30,000/- to complainant on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses and even adjust the excessive bill amount, out of the amount of Rs.14830/- in the next electricity bills.

2.       Ops filed written statement by pleading inter alia as if complaint is not maintainable in present form;  complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and even he has no locus standi to file the complaint.  Admittedly, the connection with account No.214C190035 is in name of Sukhwinder Singh.  Meter of complainant was changed on 22.06.2015 vide MCO No.70/104980 dated 22.06.2015.  Bill of July 2015 was prepared as per electricity supply code 2014 sub section 21.5.2 (a).  This bill was prepared by keeping in view the change of meter for 65 days of consumption on load of 1.920 KW.  The bill is prepared on the basis of consumption of bill of July 2014.  Average bill during July 2014 did show 506 units of consumption and by keeping in view the sanctioned load of 1.920 KW, calculation of the average units as 1913 was done on formula of 506X1.92/0.500X64/65.  Bill of July 2015 as such alleged to be legal and valid.  Other averments of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint.

3.       Complainant to prove his case tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and thereafter counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

4.       Counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OPA of Sh.Jasvir Singh Sagar, SDO alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and thereafter closed the evidence.

5.       Written arguments have not been submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments alone advanced.

6.       Undisputedly, complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection in question because of his being tenant in the shop in question after getting the same on rent by him through rent deed Ex.C-6.  Bone of contention remains as to whether charging of amount of Rs.12956/- as Misc. expenses through bill Ex.C-2 dated 28.07.2015 is legal or not. 

7.       Meter in question was changed through MCO dated 22.06.2015 (Ex.OP-1), on request of complainant because he approached Op No.1 after finding the light in the shop not working properly.  This meter was sent to ME Lab by Ops, who through report Ex.OP-2, found the meter to be burnt and thereafter, by keeping in view regulation 21.5.2 (a) of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 (effective from 01.01.2015), as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Reg97 dated 05.11.2014 and published in Government of Punjab Gazette (Extra) dated 05.11.2014, average consumption of units for July 2015 was found as 1913 units by keeping in view the earlier sanctioned load as 0.50 KW during July 2014, but 1.920KW during July  2015.  Consumption of units of July 2014 was taken as 506 and by applying the formula of 506X1.92/0.50X64/65, average consumption of unit of July 2015 assessed as 1913 units through calculation sheet Ex.OP-5 =  Ex.C-5. However, this calculation is erroneous because regulation 21.5.2 referred above, lays that account of consumer shall be overhauled for the period, meter remained defective, dead stop and in case of burnt/stolen meter for the period of direct supply subject to maximum period of six months, on the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year, but in case the consumption of corresponding period of previous year is not available, then average monthly consumption of previous six months during which the meter was functional is to be taken into consideration for overhauling the account.  However, as per regulation 21.5.2 (c) of the above referred regulations, if neither consumption of previous year and nor for the last six months is available, then average of the consumption of the period for which meter worked correctly during the last six months, is to be taken into consideration for overhauling the account of consumer.  As the overhauling of the account in the case of burnt meter to take place on basis of average consumption of the corresponding  previous year subject to maximum period of six months and as such by keeping in view the consumption during July 2014 alone, the calculation could not have been made in the manner referred above, particularly when the consumption in the last six months proceeding July 2015 was of 493 units (during September 2014); 314 units (during November 2014); 202 units (during January 2015); 198 units (during March 2015) and 358 units (during May 2015) as worked out by OPs themselves through detailed chart of consumption Ex.OP-4.  Rather, average of the six months consumption prior to July 2015 should have been made the base, instead of consumption of 506 units during July 2014 alone, particularly when defect in the meter pointed out by complainant himself paving way for Ops to send the meter to ME Lab.

8.       As per regulation 21.5.3 of the above referred regulation of PSEB, any evidence provided by the consumer about conditions of working and/or occupancy of the concerned premises during the said period, which might have bearing on computation of electricity consumption, shall also be taken into consideration by the distribution licensee.  It is not the case of the OPs that complainant was provided opportunity of leading evidence about the conditions of working and/or occupancy of the premises in which the electric meter in question is installed before sending bill Ex.C-2.  So bill Ex.C-2 sent in violation of the above referred regulation 21.5.3 and principles of natural justice because rule “Audi Alteram Partem” was not kept in mind, while putting forth the demand in question.

9.       Regulation 21.3.6 of the above referred regulations provides that distribution licensee shall have the right to test any consumer meter and related equipment, either at site or in the laboratory, but when the meter to be tested in the laboratory, then consumer will have right to be present during such testing, which is to take place within seven days on payment of fee by consumer.  In order to enable the complainant to be present at the time of testing of the meter in laboratory, advance notice of three days in writing must have been given to the complainant of the proposed date of testing as per Regulation 21.3.6 (e) of the above referred regulations.  That notice not given to complainant at all is a fact admitted by counsel for OPs during course of arguments and as such testing report qua the meter in question obtained through Ex.OP-2 in violation of regulation 21.3.6.  No consent in writing of complainant ever obtained for testing of meter in the lab without his presence and as such the testing of the meter in fact got done in violation of regulation 21.3.6 referred above.

10.     As per regulation 30.1.1 of the above referred regulations, a consumer bill shall disclose the period of billing, date when the meter was read, date of issue of bill, due date for payment and additional amount payment in case of delayed payment.  However, after going through bill Ex.C-2, it is made out that the same does not disclose period of billing or the date when the meter reading was taken.

11.     Regulation 30.1.2 of the above referred regulation provides that bill cum notice for arrears in the case of under assessment or the charges levied as a result of checking etc shall be initially tendered separately and shall not be clubbed with current electricity bill.  The arrear bill cum notice to briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrear alongwith calculation details of such arrear.  In case arrear bill is included in the current energy bill at the first instance, then the distribution licensee shall not be entitled to take punitive action against the consumer for non-payment of such arrear amount alongwith the current energy bill.  In the case before us bill Ex.C-2 includes the charges levied as a result of checking also and the same virtually includes the current bill as well as the arrears of checking and as such it is a clubbed bill issued in violation of regulation 30.1.2 of the above referred regulations.  So bill Ex.C-2 is issued in violation of rules and regulations of the board and demand is put forth in violation of principles of natural justice also.  As complainant has to pay whole amount of Rs.14830/- including the illegally demanded amount of Rs.12956/- through bill Ex.C-2 and as such while quashing the bill in question qua recovery of Rs.12956/-, Ops must be directed to adjust the illegally demanded amount of Rs.12956/- in future bills.  However, in case the Ops to recover amount of Rs.12956/- mentioned as Misc. Expenses in bill Ex.C-2, then due opportunity of hearing in accordance with rules and regulations of PSEB and principle of natural justice has to be provided and till then Ops must not recover amount of Rs.12956/- in question.  As demand of 12956/- put forth in illegal manner and as such there is deficiency in service on part of OPs, due to which complainant has to suffer mentally.

12.     As a sequel of above discussion, present complaint is allowed, in terms that OPs will not recover amount of Rs.12,956/- mentioned as Misc. Expenses in bill Ex.C-2, till passing of due/appropriate order after giving due opportunity of hearing to complainant by competent authority.  If at all that recovery to be effected, then process must be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, OPs will stand debarred from recovering Rs.12956/-.  As the entire amount of Rs.14830/- claimed to have already been deposited and as such out of that amount of Rs.14830/-, adjustment of Rs.12956/- will be done by OPs in the future bills.  Compensation of Rs.3000/- and litigation of Rs.2000/- allowed in favour of complainant.          

          Compliance of these directions be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of this order.      

13.     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:  14.01.2016

 

  

(Sushma Handoo)                                                           (G.K. Dhir)

Member                                                                         President