DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.378 of 2017

                                                Date of institution:  30.05.2017                                         Date of decision   :  11.06.2019

Mukesh Gupta son of Shri Moti Lal Gupta, resident of H.No.1596, Saini Vihar, Phase-III, Baltana, Zirakpur, Tehsil Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab, Consumer Account No.Z74ZK131048K.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Chief Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala Circle, Patiala, Punjab.

2.     Senior Executive Engineer (Operation), Division, Zirakpur.

                                                            ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Shri Pankaj Sharma, counsel for OPs.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant, holder of electricity connection bearing account No.Z74ZK131048K installed at his house claims that electricity meter was faulty one because of running of same at high speed. All of a sudden when complainant received electricity bill on 28.01.2017, then he got knowledge as if reading of consumed electricity was 4120 units. That bill was mentioning old reading as 13772 units, but new reading as 17992 units. An application with Assistant Executive Engineer, Zirakpur was filed on 30.01.2017 for lodging protest regarding faulty electric meter. Request was made for repair of electricity meter got done from competent authority. Shri Satpal, Lineman was deputed for enquiring into the matter and he after checking electricity meter, submitted his report to the effect that meter is running fast. Though the earlier reading was of 17992 units as on 28.01.2017, but report of Shri Satpal, Lineman shows as if consumption is of 18128 units on 30.01.2017. Consumption of 136 units of electricity is not possible in two days. Rs.120/- were deposited as checking fee of the meter on 30.01.2017 and thereafter competent authority issued order for change of electricity meter of complainant on 30.01.2017. Complainant was disclosed that the electricity department will replace new meter within two days, but despite that electricity meter remained installed uptill 07.02.2017, when it did show reading of 19029 units i.e. consumption of 901 units in 8 days.  Meter was sent for checking in the laboratory, where the same was found dead through report dated 16.02.2017. Complainant filed application with Disputes Settlement Committee and thereafter report from office of Executive Engineer (Operation Circle), Mohali was sought.  Consumption data sought was of 900 days regarding electricity meter in question. Complainant was required to deposit 20% of the disputed amount and as such he deposited Rs.7,160/- on 19.04.2017. Thereafter complainant was disclosed that his case has been put up before Disputes Settlement Committee for 27.04.2017 and there complainant presented himself for hearing alongwith documents. Cause of action alleged to have accrued against OPs when electricity bill on 28.01.2017 was received.  By claiming that OPs adopted unfair trade practice, direction sought to OPs to get replaced new electricity meter with old one and correct the wrong electricity bills. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.15,000/-, but litigation of Rs.10,000/- more claimed.

2.             In reply submitted by OPs, it is claimed that this Forum has no jurisdiction because complainant has already approached Disputes Redressal Committee constituted under the Electricity Act and the case has already been decided there in favour of OPs in April, 2017. Complainant is liable to deposit disputed amount as per decision of the Committee. Complainant has not raised any objection against decision of the Committee and as such virtually he is satisfied with that decision. Complaint alleged to be false and frivolous. Besides, it is claimed that complainant has concealed material facts from the Forum, due to which complaint deserves dismissal, more so when there is no deficiency in service on part of OPs. Bills were issued to complainant on basis of actual consumption. Calculations were made as per rules, but after taking into consideration recorded reading. Admittedly meter was challenged on ground that same was running at high speed. Bill dated 28.01.2017 was issued for actual consumption of 4120 units. Admittedly complainant approached OPs for checking of meter through written request and thereafter Lineman checked and recorded new reading as 18128 units. Authority has issued orders for change of meter of complainant on deposit of necessary fee. Old meter was replaced on 07.02.2017, when it was giving reading of 19029 units. This meter after being packed was sent for test report to ME Lab., Ropar, from where report has already been received. Admittedly complainant approached Disputes Settlement Committee of Electricity Department. Consumption data was issued to the complainant for 919 days. Admittedly complainant deposited 20% of the disputed bill amount and thereafter matter was put up before Disputes Settlement Committee of OPs. Complainant after being satisfied with decision of the Committee became ready to pay disputed amount. Allegations of adoption of unfair trade practice denied by claiming that consumption of units got calculated through reading got noted from installed electric meter. Records of PSPCL maintained in usual course of business in discharge of official duties and as such same has to be taken as correct. Story regarding different moves of electric meter at different times alleged to be a bundle of lies. Electricity bills issued to the complainant were paid by complainant from time to time. No cause of action has accrued in favour of complainant and as such by denying each and every other averment of the complaint, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith document Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 and thereafter his counsel closed evidence.   On the other hand counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri Navjot Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments submitted by OPs, but not by complainant. Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             Bill Ex.C-1 is for period from 26.11.2016 to 28.01.2017, which shows consumption of 4120 units during this period of two months. Sanctioned load of this domestic connection is 2.98 KW. Same load mentioned in bill Ex.OP-3 issued for period from 26.11.2017 to 27.01.2018. Complainant filed applications Ex.C-2 = Ex.C-4 with Assistant Executive Engineer, Zirakpur for checking of meter and thereafter report of Junior Engineer dated 30.01.2017 obtained thereon, in which mention made as if reading of alleged defective meter is 18128 units. So certainly when comparison of contents of Ex.C-1 vis. a vis. Ex.C-2 = Ex.C-4 done, then same shows as if consumption of 136 units took place in 2 days. Possibility of such huge consumption on above sanctioned domestic load of 2.98 KW is not there in 2 days and as such certainly submission advanced by complainant has force that the meter was running fast and that is why request for replacement of same submitted by complainant by filing affidavit Ex.C-3 alongwith applications Ex.C-2=Ex.C-4.

6.             Though applications Ex.C-2 = Ex.C-4 requests for removal of defective electric meter running fast were submitted by complainant on 30.01.2017, but removal of said electric meter took place on 07.02.2017 as disclosed by contents of meter change order Ex.C-5. Why this delay of 7 days took place in change of electric meter, qua that no due explanation offered by OPs and as such it is obvious that OPs provided deficient services in not changing the meter at earliest after submission of request by complainant and deposit of challenge fee of Rs.120/- on 30.01.2017 itself as endorsed on applications Ex.C-2 = Ex.C-4. This meter was found dead by M.E. Lab. is a fact borne from contents of test report Ex.C-6= Ex.C-9= Ex.OP-1. At the time of removal of this mater on 07.02.2017, same recorded reading of 19029 units and as such certainly submission advanced by complainant has force that consumption of 901 units shown during period from 30.01.2017 to 07.02.2017.  When this data of consumption of 4120 units in 2 months or of consumption of 136 units in 2 days or of 901 units in 8 days compared with the consumption data for period from July 2014 to November, 2016 as mentioned in Ex.C-8, then same leaves no manner of doubt that actually meter got removed by complainant by filing applications, was running very fast and that is why it recorded consumption of 4120 units in 2 months or of 136 units in 2 days or of 901 units in 8 days.

7.             After going through consumption data chart Ex.C-8, it is made out that this meter recorded consumption of 85 units during period from May, 2014 to July, 2014; but of 193 units during period from August, 2014 to November, 2014; of 175 units during period from 11.11.2014 to January, 2015; of 127 units during period from January 2015 to March 2015; of 151 units during period from March 2015 to May 2015; of 51 units during period from May 2015 to July 2015; of 99 units during period from July 2015 to September, 2015; of 42 units during period from September, 2015 to November, 2015; of 4 units during period from November, 2015 to January, 2016; of 144 units during period from January 2016 to March 2016; of 524 units during period from March 2016 to May 2016; of 594 units during period from May 2016 to July 2016; of 308 units during period from July 2016 to September, 2016 and of 366 units during period from September, 2016 to 11.11.2016.  As consumption of electric meter in question ranged in consumption unit ratio of 42 to 193 units during period from July, 2014 to March, 2016 and as such certainly record of subsequent consumption of 524 units or of 594 units or of 308 and 366 units during period from May 2016 to November, 2016 was on higher side. It cannot be imagined that consumption will shoot up to 4120 units during period from November, 2016 to January, 2017 as is made out from contents of Ex.C-1 vis. a vis. the consumption data Ex.C-8 and as such meter being defective gave excessive reading of 4120 units during period from November, 2016 to January, 2017. Moreover, meter was found dead on checking in M.E. Lab., Ropar as per report Ex.C-9 = Ex.C-6 and Ex.OP-1 and as such it is obvious that meter after running at excessive speed became dead at the time of its removal.

8.             Disputes Settlement Committee took up the matter on filing of application Ex.C-7 or Ex.C-10 as revealed by contents of these documents alongwith letter Ex.C-13 issued by Sub Divisional Engineer of Mohali Division. Disputes Settlement Committee vide its order Ex.C-14 = Ex.OP-2 found that after scrutinizing consumption data for period from 10.11.2014 to 28.01.2017 it found average consumption as 225 units per month and same is within norms. However, this decision of Disputes Settlement Committee has not taken into consideration the consumption data mentioned in Ex.C-8 referred in extenso above and as such certainly complainant bound to be not satisfied with this decision of Disputes Settlement Committee. Rather relevant period for which excessive consumption complained of by complainant was from November, 2016 to January, 2017 and as such data of actual consumption of previous period w.e.f. July, 2014 to November, 2016 should have been taken into consideration for finding as to whether consumption of 4120 units during period from November, 2016 to January, 2017 is possible or not. Rather the Disputes Settlement Committee took into consideration consumption data for the disputed period alongwith other period from July 2014 onwards till January, 2017 and as such certainly Disputes Settlement Committee did not take into consideration the relevant factors for assessment purpose. Rather the Disputes Settlement Committee through its order Ex.C-14 = Ex.OP-2 virtually has favoured  PSPCL by taking into consideration data from November, 2014 to 28.01.2017 without bothering for data for period from November, 2016 to January, 2017. So the order of Disputes Settlement Committee Ex.C-14 = Ex.OP-2 being faulty, cannot be relied upon for denying complainant of his due.  Submission made by counsel for OPs through written arguments as well as through oral arguments regarding complainant being satisfied with the decision of Disputes Settlement Committee has no force at all. It is on account of this non satisfaction by complainant with decision of Disputes Settlement Committee that he has filed this complaint. So rule of estoppel does not denude complainant from filing this complaint, more so when he has a good cause for showing that demand raised through bill Ex.C-1 regarding consumption of 4120 units is against rules and regulations of PSPCL.

9.             If records of PSPCL prepared in discharge of its official duties to be taken as correct, as contended by counsel for OPs, then relevant consumption data contained in Ex.C-8 as referred in extenso above, cannot be ignored at all for finding as to whether there is justification for OPs to claim charges of Rs.31,690/- for consumption of 4120 units for period from 26.11.2016 to 28.01.2017 through bill Ex.C-1.  Rather decision of Disputes Settlement Committee is against rules and regulations and as such same liable to be ignored.

10.           As per law laid down in case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Anis Ahmad, Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 arising out of SLP (C) No.35906 of 2011, decided on 01.07.2013 by Hon’ble Apex Court, when there is inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, then provisions of latter will prevail, albeit the same ipso facto will not vest the Consumer Forum with power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters, which do not come within the meaning of ‘Service’ as defined in Section 2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act. A complaint against the assessment made by Assessing Officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is not maintainable before Consumer Fora.  As per further ratio of this case, jurisdiction of Consumer Forum to grant relief is limited to the dispute relating to ‘unfair trade practice’ or ‘restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider’, or ‘if the consumer suffered from deficiency in service’, or ‘the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law’. By keeping in view the propositions of law laid down in the above cited case, it has to be held that jurisdiction of this Forum is not barred in cases of the kind decided by this judgment because the demand put forth by OPs virtually falls within the domain of sufferance of a consumer due to deficiency in service and even because of charging of demanded amount in violation of principles of natural justice and the rules and regulations framed by OPs. Consumer Fora has fullest jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to  excessive billing in case the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice, as per law laid down in case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and another Vs. M.D. Imtiyaz – IV (2014) CPJ 25 (Hon’ble Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission).  So certainly this Forum has jurisdiction to decide this complaint.

11.           Perusal of Regulation 30.1.2 of 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./Reg.97 dated November 5, 2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazettee (Extra) dated November 5, 2014, reveals that charges levied as arrears for correcting the mistake not to be clubbed with the current electricity bill. Rather, arrear bill-cum-notice to be separately issued giving brief details of nature and period of arrears alongwith calculation details of such arrears. Such bill-cum-notice not claimed or shown to be sent by OPs to complainant before putting forth the demand in question and as such, there is violation of this latest Regulation 30.1.2 also.

12.           So virtually after going through these provisions and other regulations of PSPCL, it is made out that for the defective meter period, OPs should have assessed the amount on the basis of average consumption for the previous corresponding period of 6 months. That has not been done and as such virtually the amount claimed through Ex.C-1 and subsequent bill Ex.C-11 is arbitrary and illegal and against rules and regulations of PSPCL. Complainant has deposited Rs.7,160/- on 19.04.2017 is a fact borne from contents of Ex.C-12 and even he deposited Rs.10,585/- on 14.09.2017 through Ex.C-16 and these amounts liable to be adjusted in the amount claimable by OPs on issue of new bill to be issued on average consumption basis for the last 6 months preceeding the date of removal of defective meter on 07.02.2017 by taking into consideration consumption of previous corresponding period of September, 2016 to 07.02.2017. Same will be in consonance with the principles of natural justice and rules and regulations of PSPCL. Complaint deserves to be allowed accordingly. As OPs demanded excessive amount through bill Ex.C-1, and as such complainant had to suffer mental agony and harassment and even he stood dragged to this litigation, due to which he is entitled for reasonable amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

13.           Certainly complainant has not raised any objection regarding checking of the meter in question in his absence, but even then submission of counsel for OPs has no force that complainant was satisfied with the raised demand through bill Ex.C-1. Rather checking of the meter through M.E. Lab. took place at instance of complainant on complaining of fast running of the meter and as such complainant took due steps for availing appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance, but without getting justice from OPs or its Disputes Settlement Committee as per established rules and regulations of PSPCL. The amounts already deposited by complainant as per terms of order dated 11.09.2017 passed in this complaint also liable to be adjusted towards claimable amount by OPs on the basis of average consumption of units during period from September, 2016 to 07.02.2017.

14.           Regulation 21.5.2 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2014 (effective from 01.01.2015) (as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Reg.97 dated November 5, 2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazettee (Extra) dated November 5, 2014 reads as under:

“21.5.2 Defective (other than inaccurate)/Dead Stop/Burnt/Stolen Meters.

The accounts of a consumer shall be overhauled/billed 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 as per procedure given below:

a)     On the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year.

b)     In case the consumption of corresponding period of the previous year as referred in para (a) above is not available, the average monthly consumption of previous six (6) months during which the meter was functional, shall be adopted for overhauling of accounts.

c)     If neither the consumption of corresponding period of previous year (para-a) nor for the last six months (para-b) is available then average of the consumption for the period the meter worked correctly during the last 6 months, shall be taken for overhauling the accounts of the consumer.

d)     Where the consumption for the previous months/period as referred in para (a) to para ( c) is not available, the consumer shall be tentatively billed on the basis of consumption assessed as per para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the corresponding period of the succeeding year.

e)     The energy consumption determined as per para (a) to (d) above shall be adjusted for the change of load/demand, if any, during the period of overhauling of accounts.

15.           Further Regulation 21.5.3 provides that if any evidence provided by consumer about conditions of working and/or occupancy of the concerned premises during the period, which might have a bearing on computation of electricity consumption, shall be taken into consideration by the distribution licensee.  These provisions not at all taken into consideration by the Disputes Settlement Committee. As the meter in question was dead stop as per report of the M.E. Lab, and as such accounts of complainant should have been overhauled for the period the meter remained dead stop or defective by taking into consideration the average consumption or the energy consumption of the corresponding period of previous year, but subject to maximum period of six months only. These Regulations not taken into consideration by Disputes Settlement Committee even. Charging for 4120 units of consumption or for 136 units in 2 days or for 901 units in 8 days, in such circumstances is against the rules and regulations of PSPCL itself. Being so, demand raised by OPs liable to be quashed with direction to OPs to recover the bill amount on basis of average consumption or otherwise as per Regulations 21.5.2 and 21.5.3 referred above.

16.       As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to OPs to recover the bill amount from complainant for period from September 2016 to 07.02.2017 on average basis by taking into consideration the corresponding consumption of the preceeding period of 6 months calculated from September, 2016 backwards. The amounts already paid by complainant will be adjusted in the demand to be raised by OPs. After calculation of due amount as aforesaid, intimation of claimable amount will be given by OPs in writing to complainant by giving details of claimable amount on average basis minus amounts already paid by complainant by way of adjustment. Such exercise must be carried by OPs within 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and thereafter intimation in writing be given to complainant by OPs for calling upon him to pay balance due amount. Complainant entitled to compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.20,000/- and to litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made by OPs to complainant within 40 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.  Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

June 11, 2019.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member