Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/102

HARPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :         102

Date of Institution :   27.03.2017

Date of Decision :     10.08.2017

Harpal Singh aged about 35 years s/o Wariam Singh r/o Shaheed Balwinder Singh Nagar, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot, Mobile No.95018-74365.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer DS City Sub Division, PSPCL,  Faridkot.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective meter, restore the electric connection and to set aside the demand of Rs.31,940/-raised vide bill for 2.10.2016 and for further directing them to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. BR-77/0924 (old) and 3000292529 new installed outside his premises in properly sealed Pillar Box . It is submitted that complainant applied for domestic connection and deposited ACD and meter security and thereafter, connection was released by OPs in year 2014 with load of 0.200 KW. It is further submitted that complainant belongs to scheduled caste category and therefore as per rules of PSPCL, he is entitled for availing concession. Complainant was receiving the bills for nil payment as connection of complainant falls under DS (WSD) category. It is further submitted that complainant received a bill dated 2.10.2016 for the period from 4.08.2016 to 2.10.2016 for RS.31,940/-for 4479 units, which is very excessive an unlawful. On receiving the same, complainant moved an application dt 14.10.2016 requesting OPs to check his meter that showed excessive reading. Concerned JE of OPs visited the site and gave report that meter of complainant was flickering without any load and then, complainant deposited Rs.170/- with OPs as meter challenge fee vide receipt dt 5.12.2016 and thereafter, MCO dt 5.12.2016 was issued for replacing the defective meter of complainant, but till today, OPs have not replaced his meter, rather they have disconnected his connection, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Complainant made several requests to Ops to withdraw the bill in question and to replace his meter, but they refused to accede to his requests and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to OPs replace the defective meter, restore the electric connection and to set aside the demand of Rs.31,940/-raised vide bill for 2.10.2016 and for further directing them to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 28.03.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                      On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that meter of complainant was removed vide job order dated 8.12.2016 and same would be sent to ME Lab. On receipt of report, as per rules and regulations of PSPCL, account of complainant would be overhauled. Old meter was removed and on its place, new meter of make Flash capacity 10-60 Ampere was installed at initial reading 000002. It is further averred that concession would be given to complainant from the date of submission of documents and necessary correction would be made on receipt of result of M E Lab. Complainant is not entitled to any compensation or relief. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                     Parties were given proper opportunities        to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 7 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Santokh Singh as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-6 and closed the evidence.

7                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                            Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is having domestic electric connection installed outside his premises in properly sealed Pillar Box. He applied for domestic connection and deposited ACD and meter security and thereafter, connection was released by OPs in year 2014 with load of 0.200 KW. It is further argued that complainant belongs to scheduled caste category and therefore as per rules of PSPCL, he is entitled for availing concession. Complainant was receiving the bills for nil payment as connection of complainant falls under DS (WSD) category, but complainant received a bill dated 2.10.2016 for the period from 4.08.2016 to 2.10.2016 for RS.31,940/-for 4479 units, which is very excessive an unlawful. On receiving the same, complainant moved an application dt 14.10.2016 requesting OPs to check his meter that showed excessive reading. Concerned JE of OPs visited the site and gave report that meter of complainant was flickering without any load and then, complainant deposited Rs.170/- with OPs as meter challenge fee vide receipt dt 5.12.2016 and thereafter, MCO dt 5.12.2016 was issued for replacing the defective meter of complainant, but till today, OPs have not replaced his meter, rather they have disconnected his connection, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Repeated requests made by complainant to Ops to withdraw the bill in question and to replace his meter bore no fruit. All his caused inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to OPs replace the defective meter, restore the electric connection and to set aside the demand of Rs.31,940/-raised vide bill for 2.10.2016 and for further directing them to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses.

9                                    Ld Counsel for Ops argued before the Forum that all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that meter of complainant was removed vide job order dated 8.12.2016 and same would be sent to ME Lab. On receipt of report, as per rules and regulations of PSPCL, account of complainant would be overhauled. Old meter was removed and on its place, new meter of make Flash capacity 10-60 Ampere was installed at initial reading 000002. It is further averred that concession would be given to complainant from the date of submission of documents and necessary correction would be made on receipt of result of M E Lab. Complainant is not entitled to any compensation or relief. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

10                                     From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that he applied for domestic connection under reserved category and as per rules of PSPCL, he is entitled for availing concession. He was receiving the bills for nil payment for being under DS (WSD) category, but he received a bill dated 2.10.2016 for the period from 4.08.2016 to 2.10.2016 for RS.31,940/-for 4479 units, which is very excessive an unlawful. On receiving the same, complainant moved an application dt 14.10.2016 to check his meter that showed excessive reading. Concerned JE of OPs visited the site and gave report that meter of complainant was flickering without any load and then, complainant deposited Rs.170/- with OPs as meter challenge fee vide receipt dt 5.12.2016 and thereafter, MCO dt 5.12.2016 was issued for replacing the defective meter of complainant, but till today, OPs have not replaced his meter, rather they have disconnected his connection, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In reply, Ops have denied all the allegations and have argued that defective meter of complainant has been removed and sent to M E Lab and in place of old meter of complainant, new meter has been installed and further argued that concession would be given to complainant from the date of submission of documents and necessary correction would be made on receipt of result of M E Lab. Complainant is not entitled to any compensation or relief.

11                                                Now, it is admitted case of the parties that complainant is consumer of OPs having electric connection in his premises. It is further admitted that Ops issued bill dated 2.10.2016 for the period from 4.08.2016 to 2.10.2016 of 4479 units for Rs.31,940/-, which is very excessive as comparison to the load of complainant and after receiving the same, complainant moved application to OPs with request to check his meter and also deposited Meter Challenge Fee with OPs.  The version of Ops is that they sent the meter in question for checking in M E Lab Moga and as per report of M E Lab, the account of complainant would be overhauled. During the course of arguments, ld counsel for OPs submitted that OPs  sent the meter in question for checking to M E Lab Moga, where the meter is checked by experts and in the checking report, it is found that meter of complainant is defective one and therefore, they would overhaul the account of complainant accordingly. However, as per Rules and Regulations of PSPCL in case the meter found defective then, account of consumer will be overhauled on the basis of consumption of corresponding period of previous year. The relevant regulations of PSPCL given in section 21.04 (g) (ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 vide notification no. PSERC/Secy/Regu.31 dated June, 29, 2007 are reproduced as hereunder:

“The account of a consumer will be overhauled for the period a defective meter remained at site and for the period of direct supply, on the basis of energy consumption of the corresponding period of the previous year after calibrating for the changes in load, if any. In case the average consumption for the corresponding period of previous year is not available then, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicted in para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous/succeeding year.

12                                        In the instant case, the average consumption for the corresponding period of the previous year must be available with the Ops, so in view of aforementioned section 21.4 (g) ( ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicated in Para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of previous year.

13                                     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and the impugned demand raised by Ops from complainant vide bill dated 2.10.2016 is set aside and quashed. However, the Ops are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period by overhauling his account on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 10.08.2017

                  

Member                                  President                        (P Singla)                   (Ajit Aggarwal)