Punjab

Sangrur

CC/225/2014

JYOTI SOOD - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY, PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT JAIN

17 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    225

                                                Instituted on:      17.04.2014

                                                Decided on:       17.03.2015

 

Jyoti Sood wife of Shri Parveen Sood son of Shri Jagdish Chand Sood, Soodan Wal              a Mohalla, Malerkotla.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.

2.     AEE, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, City-II, Malerkotla.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Jyoti Sood, 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 L33SW230158Y with a sanctioned load of 07.82 KW and it is further stated that the complainant has been using the connection and paying the bills regularly.

2.             The case of the complainant is that he received a bill dated 11.10.2013 for Rs.11,440/- in which an amount of Rs.3558/- has been added on account of ‘balance of current financial year’. The complainant immediately approached OP number 2 to withdraw the demand of Rs.3558/-, but OP number 2 refused to explain the same, rather told her to deposit the bill in question, failing which to face disconnection of her electricity connection. As such, she deposited the bill in question under protest.  Thereafter the complainant received another bill dated 9.2.2014 for the period from 8.12.2013 to 9.2.2014 for Rs.10,030/- in which an amount of Rs.6879/- were demanded on account of ‘balance of current financial year, as such, the complainant approached OP number 2 and requested for withdrawal of the demand of Rs.6879/-, but nothing happened.    It is further stated that the meter installed by the OPs is quite OK and the same was never checked in the ME laboratory at any time nor any notice was received by the complainant regarding any checking of the meter in the ME laboratory. 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.6879/- raised by the OPs vide bill dated 09.02.2014 on account of balance of ‘current financial year’ and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious, that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands.   On merits, it is admitted that the connection in question is running in the name of the complainant, as such she is a consumer of the OPs. It is further admitted that the bill dated 11.11.2013 was issued for Rs.11,440/- whereby an amount of Rs.3558/- was also charged. It is further stated that as per key exception report of meter reader, the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO number 013/100232 dated 10.6.2012 which was effected on 3.7.2013 and new meter was installed. Thereafter the old meter was checked and found OK. The consumption for the period from 10/2012 to 2/2013 was recorded as 861+474+437 units and the account of the complainant was overhauled for the said period vide half margin note number 20 dated 2.12.2013 and the amount recoverable from the complainant was found to be Rs.10,648/- and an amount of Rs.3769/- was already charged, therefore, the amount of Rs.6879/- was found recoverable from the complainant, which was charged in the bill in question accordingly. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.             In rejoinder, the allegations of the complainant in the complaint have been reiterated. However, it is denied that the meter in question was ever checked in the ME laboratory. 

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 copies of bills, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8 copies of receipts, Ex.C-9 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of MCO, Ex.OP-2 copy of list of a CD, Ex.OP-3 copy of half margin note, Ex.OP-4 affidavit, Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-12 copies of ledger and closed evidence.

 

6.             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.

 

7.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact the connection in question is running in the name of the complainant, as such, she is a consumer of the OPs vide connection number L33SW230158Y.

 

8.             In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on raising of the demand of Rs.6879/- by the OPs in the bill dated 09.02.2014, which is said to be wrong and illegal. The leaned counsel for the OPs has contended that as per key exception report of the meter reader, the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO number 013/100232 dated 10.6.2012 which was effected on 3.7.2013 and thereafter the meter in question was checked in the ME laboratory and the same was found OK.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the old removed meter was not packed and sealed in a cardboard box according to the rules and regulations of the OPs.  It is further contended that the complainant was never called to come present in the ME laboratory at the time of checking of the old removed meter nor the same has been checked in the ME laboratory in her presence.  There is no explanation from the Ops that why the meter in question was not checked in the ME laboratory according to the rules and regulations of the PSPCL.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the removed meter in question 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. Further there is no explanation from the side of the OPs that on what account, the OPs are demanding such an  amount of Rs.6879/- by adding the same in the bill dated 09.02.2014 from the complainant. More so when the meter in the ME laboratory was found in OK condition.     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. 

 

9.             The learned counsel for the OPs has further contended that the demand of Rs.3558/- raised vide bill dated 11.11.2013 is on account of ACD as per the circular of the PSPCL.  We feel that since the demand of Rs.3558/- raised by the OPs is on account of ACD in view of the circular of the OPs and the same amount has been duly deposited by the complainant with the Ops without any protest.  Further, it is not open for the complainant to challenge any rules/instructions/circular of the OPs before this Forum, as such, we are unable to hold that the demand of Rs.3558/- on account of ACD is illegal one which has been raised in view of the circular of the OPs.

  

10.            In view of our above discussion, we find that OPs are not only deficient in rendering service to the complainant by raising such a huge demand of Rs.\6879/- vide bill dated 09.02.2014, but are also negligent by not adhering to their own instructions as contained in commercial circular number 8/99 regarding checking and testing of the defective meters.

 

11.            In result of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.6879/- raised vide bill dated 09.02.2014.  We further order the OPs to refund to the complainant, the amount, if any deposited by the complainant against the above said demand.  The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and litigation expenses.

 

12.    This order of ours 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.

                March 17,2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member