BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.360 of 2017 Date of Instt.26.09.2017 Date of Decision: 27.04.2021

Paramjit Kaur Sethi wife of S. Jagjit Singh resident of 226, New Defence Colony, Paragpur, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Chairman, Sakti Sadan, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Mall Road, Patiala

2. SDO, Commercial Unit III, PSPCL Birring, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:

Sh. Kuljit Singh, President

Smt. Jyotsna, Member

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant : Sh.Saurabh Sharma, Advocate

For OPs : Sh.D.R. Seth, Advocate

Order

Kuljit Singh, President

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein complainant averred that he is actual consumer of domestic electric connection bearing G.T. 16/0730 Contract No.3000581234, installed at the residence of complainant. The said meter is lying installed outside the residence of complainant. The connection is regularly checked by officials of OPs and at the time of checking meter reading of electricity consumption obtained by OPs and bill issued to complainant. The electricity consumption of complainant is between 500 units to 1000 units per bill cycle and regularly paying by him. In the month of September 2015, the old reading was 11236 and new reading was 11969 and bill was charged for Rs.10,050/- for 733 units and till June 2017, electricity bills have been normally charged but in the month of July 2017, the meter was not showing the consumption of units and it was showing I.Code error on the meter. On intimation given by complainant to OP No.1, the electricity meter of complainant was checked and the meter was not calculated the difference of units between old reading and new reading which was 27512 to 28348. After checking of meter, during the checking it was noticed by officials of OP-2 that meter was showing reading on 26.07.2017 as 47940 due to sudden jumping of meter due to some technical default in the meter. By noting down the wrong reading the OP-2 issued a notice to him by claiming the amount of Rs.1,54,669/- from complainant vide memo bearing No.1130 dated 10.08.2017 inspite of having entire previous record of the complainant which shows the average consumption of 500 units to 1000 units. The complainant is not liable to pay the same as she has done nothing wrong and is totally innocent. In fact, at the time of checking the meter, it has jumped due to some technical default. The complainant approached to OP and requested them to rectify the amount of Rs.1,54,669/- wrongly charged upon him for the consumption of electricity units which have not been consumed by her. The complainant also agreed to make the payment of normal used unit by him but the OP-2 flatly refused to accept the genuine request of complainant. Lastly, prayer has been made that OPs be directed to review the notice of electricity bill of Rs.1,54,669/- charged from complainant illegally. She also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as the charges leveled are on account of difference of 19592 units consumed by complainant detected during checking dated 26.07.2017, electric meter of complainant conducted by Addl. Superintending Engineer, Kapurthala. As such, the charges leveled are rightly and legally charged as per rules, regulations and instruction of PSPCL. There is no deficiency or negligence in service on behalf of OPs; complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; complainant does not having any cause of action; complainant is estopped by her act and conduct; this Commission does not have jurisdiction; complainant does not have any locus standi. On merits, electric connection of the complainant admitted; it is submitted that reading is taken by meter reader regularly. The electricity connection of complainant is having sanctioned load of 12.000 KW has been checked by Addl. S.E. Enforcement on 26.07.2017, in the presence of consumer and it has been detected that as the site the reading of the electricity meter was 47940 KWH. Whereas in the last bill it was 28348 KWH on 7.07.2017 thus there is a difference of (47940-28348 = 19595 Units) in reading and it is a concealment of reading by meter reader Naveen Kumar in connivance with complainant to give benefit to consumer and monetary loss to OPs. Not only reading of difference of units found in the account of consumer but in other consumer’s account also and irregularities were detected and FIR was lodged against the Meter Reader Naveen Kumar and his services have been got terminated by his employer. The meter was changed vide MCO No.10000 4336479 issued on 27.07.2017 and effected on 28.07.2017, in the presence of consumer and on which reading was recorded as 48182 KWH and after change/replacement of meter, it was got to be checked in the ME Lab and consumer was asked to be present in ME Lab so that the replaced meter may be checked in her presence but she showed her unavailability and her representative extended the written consent that the replaced meter may be checked in the ME Lab in her absence and whatsoever the results are would be acceptable to her. The consent letter is also countersigned by AAE Technical-2, Er. Baljit Singh and replaced meter was checked in the ME Lab on 29.07.2017 and reading was confirmed as 48182 KWH at Serial No.4 of Enforcement Checking report No.33/407, dated 29.07.2017 and it was found that the meter was OK at reading 48182 KWH. A notice of demand Memo No.1130 dated 10.08.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,54,669/- on account of difference of Units of 19592 units was sent in the name of complainant. Other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3. In order to prove their respective version, the counsel for the parties produced on the file his respective evidence.

4. We have heard the arguments of the parties and also gone through case file carefully.

5. Learned counsel for complainant argued that the electricity consumption of complainant is between 500 units to 1000 units per bill cycle and regularly paying by him. In the month of September 2015, the old reading was 11236 and new reading was 11969 and bill was charged for Rs.10,050/- for 733 units and till June 2017, electricity bills have been normally charged but in the month of July 2017, the meter was not showing the consumption of units and it was showing I.Code error on the meter. On intimation given by complainant to OP No.1, the electricity meter of complainant was checked and the meter was not calculated the difference of units between old reading and new reading which was 27512 to 28348. After checking of meter, during the checking it was noticed by officials of OP-2 that meter was showing reading on 26.07.2017 as 47940 due to sudden jumping of meter due to some technical default in the meter. By noting down the wrong reading the OP-2 issued a notice to him by claiming the amount of Rs.1,54,669/- from complainant vide memo bearing No.1130 dated 10.08.2017 inspite of having entire previous record of the complainant which shows the average consumption of 500 units to 1000 units.

6. On the other hand counsel for OPs argued that electric connection of the complainant admitted; it is submitted that reading is taken by meter reader regularly. The electricity connection of complainant is having sanctioned load of 12.000 KW has been checked by Addl. S.E. Enforcement on 26.07.2017, in the presence of consumer and it has been detected that as the site the reading of the electricity meter was 47940 KWH. Whereas in the last bill it was 28348 KWH on 7.07.2017 thus there is a difference of (47940-28348 = 19595 Units) in reading and it is a concealment of reading by meter reader Naveen Kumar in connivance with complainant to give benefit to consumer and monetary loss to OPs. Not only reading of difference of units found in the account of consumer but in other consumer’s account also and irregularities were detected and FIR was lodged against the Meter Reader Naveen Kumar and his services have been got terminated by his employer. The meter was changed vide MCO No.10000 4336479 issued on 27.07.2017 and effected on 28.07.2017, in the presence of consumer and on which reading was recorded as 48182 KWH and after change/replacement of meter, it was got to be checked in the ME Lab and consumer was asked to be present in ME Lab so that the replaced meter may be checked in her presence but she showed her unavailability and her representative extended the written consent that the replaced meter may be checked in the ME Lab in her absence and whatsoever the results are would be acceptable to her. The consent letter is also countersigned by AAE Technical-2, Er. Baljit Singh and replaced meter was checked in the ME Lab on 29.07.2017 and reading was confirmed as 48182 KWH at Serial No.4 of Enforcement Checking report No.33/407, dated 29.07.2017 and it was found that the meter was OK at reading 48182 KWH. A notice of demand Memo No.1130 dated 10.08.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,54,669/- on account of difference of Units of 19592 units was sent in the name of complainant.

7. Before coming to the conclusion, it is to be seen whether the relation exists between the complainant and the opposite parties as consumer. Admittedly, complainant is resident of Jalandhar, opposite parties admitted that, OPs installed the meter and complainant is regularly depositing the consumption bill, then certainly complainant is the consumer and now the disputed demand of Memo No.1130 dated 10.08.2017.Accordingly,complaint is maintainable.

8. On filing the complaint, it is specifically pleaded by the complainant that the demand of Rs.1,54,669/- vide memo dated 10.08.2017 be ordered to withdraw, as the demand is illegal. In written reply, the opposite parties have taken the stand, that as per the checking dated 26.07.2017, meter reading was recorded as 28348units,but when the checking party of Addl. SE, reading was found 47940 units and difference was of 19592 units. Qua the said units, amount of Rs.1,54,669/- was charged from the complainant as difference of the units.

9. Further, complainant has a domestic electric connection and she is the consumer of OPs. She is regularly paying all the electricity bills to Ops and nothing is due as electricity charges. It is contended that complainant received said memo for Rs.1,54,669/-, which is illegal. She did not consume said units. After removal of meter and sent it to ME lab for checking. Consumption of complainant’s house as per previous bills from 2015 to September 2017 always remained less than Rs.9000/-. But the present demand of Rs.1.54,669/- which is wrong. She requested the OPs to correct the bill but OPs adamant to recover said huge amount.

10. Learned counsel for OPs argued before the Commission that   demand was issued to complainant is correct as per his consumption. As per evidence produced on record, meter of complainant was changed and was sent to ME Lab, for checking, where meter found OK and this demand was correctly issued and Ops have every right to recover the same. The entire amount is charged as per rules and regulations and it is denied that any amount has been charged illegally. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

11. From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that amount of said memo raised by Ops is illegal and unlawful and is in excess. On the other hand OPs assert that they have charged amount as per rules and regulations. They argued that the old meter of complainant was replaced with new meter. In checking at M E Lab, it is found that the meter is OK. So, as per report of M E Lab, he is liable to the bill in dispute. Complainant argued that Ops wrongly and illegally charged said amount which is due to jumping of electric meter. They wrongly showed excess reading in the alleged M E Lab Report. As per their own rules and regulations of PSPCL ltd, every defective meter required to remove shall be packed and sealed in the presence of consumer and further checking of the meter in the M E Lab should be in the presence of consumer and prior notice before checking in the M E Lab should be issued to consumer procure her presence. The Ops never packed and sealed the meter in question in the presence of complainant and no notice regarding checking in M E Lab was ever issued to complainant. No copy of checking report is ever supplied to complainant, which is a violation of their own rules and regulations. The relevant regulations of PSPCL are reproduced as hereunder:

As per regulations no.55. Replacement of Meters/Metering Equipment : 55.1 Single Phase Electromechanical Meters : E/M Meters removed from the consumer premises on replacement with the electronic meters shall be returned to M E Labs without any other formality and ME Labs will not carry out any checking/testing of these meters except in case of disputed meters. In case of disputed meters removed under code – G, M & R (glass broken, meter burnt & ME seals broken) and in cases where there is sufficient evidence of theft /tampering etc at the time of removal, the JE concerned shall record his observation on the MCO itself and such meters shall be packed and sealed in the presence of consumers for further checking in M E Labs in his presence.

12. Further as per regulation no. 21.4 (d) : In case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the Licensee’s laboratory, the consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing at least seven days in advance. The signature of the consumer, or his authorized representative, if present would be obtained on the Test Result Sheet and a copy thereof supplied to consumer.

13. After appreciating the facts, this Commission has come to the conclusion that Ex.OP-5 is mere a hand written document on the basis of which there was a demand of Rs.1,54,669/, whereas, complainant is regularly depositing the electricity charges and demand of Rs.1,54,669/- vide memo dated 10.08.2017 is illegal and not genuine.

14. Accordingly, the complaint stands partly allowed and the impugned demand of the opposite parties of Rs.1,54,669/-raised vide memo No.1130 dated 10.08.2017 is here by quashed, leaving the parties to be at their own costs. The amount deposited by the complainant against the impugned demand of Rs.1,54,669/- if any, be adjusted in the future bill(s) of the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to deposit Rs.3000/- as costs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Commission. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with the above mentioned order.

15. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days of receipt of the copy of the order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work and spread of Covid-19.

16. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law.

17. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

27^th of April 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)