Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1527

PSPCL - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bedi Ice Factory - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Mehsempuri

05 Dec 2014

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,  DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No. 1527  of 2011                                                  

                                                               Date of institution  : 18.10.2011

                                                  Date of decision     : 05.12.2014 

 

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

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation City Sub Division,     Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.  Adda Dakha, Distt.    Ludhiana.

…….Appellants/Opposite parties-

Versus

1.     M/S Bedi Ice Factory, through its Partner Sh. Shamsher Singh         Bedi S/o Sh. Manohar Singh Bedi, G.T.Road, Mullanpur, Distt. Ludhiana.

2.     Mr. Shamsher Singh Bedi, Partner M/s Bedi Ice Factory,          Jagraon Road(G.T.Road), Mullan Pur, Adda Dakha, Distt. Ludhiana.

.

……Respondents/Complainlants-

First Appeal against order dated 20.05.2011     of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana

Quorum:- 

           Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                        Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.

                        

Present:-

 

          For the appellant      :            Sh.Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate.

          For the respondent   :  None

 

 

Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member :

 

 

                   This appeal has been filed by appellants/opposite parties against the order dated  20.5.2011 passed by District  Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants  was allowed and the demand of Rs.2,70,932/-  raised by the opposite parties against the complainants was quashed and set-aside, being untenable. Any fraction of demand, if realized under the order of the District Forum  or otherwise, was ordered to be refunded to the complainant  within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant  no.2 was doing  the business of Ice  under the name and  & style of M/s Bedi Ice Factory (respondent/complainant no.1) with the help of one servant to earn the livelihood for his family and  an electric connection, bearing no.MS-11/0004Y, was installed by the opposite parties in the said Ice Factory. Opposite party no.2, vide  its memo no.761 dated 23.12.2010, asked complainant No.2 to deposit  an additional  amount of Rs.2,70,932/- within the period of 10 days or to face disconnection  of his electric connection no. MS-4. When   he contacted official of opposite party no.2, he came to know opposite parties were claiming that his meter was declared as defective by enforcement wing on 29.10.2010. In the said notice,  it was mentioned that copy of the  checking report stood  delivered at site. On demand of further details; viz, percentage of slowness, details and calculations of the amount  etc., official of opposite parties asked complainant No.2 either to deposit the demanded amount or to face the disconnection of his connection. It was  pleaded that as per the provisions of Electricity Act 2003, Electricity Supply Regulations 2005, Conditions of Supply & commercial circulars issued by the P.S.P.C.L, demand could not have been raised without getting the meter checked in ME Lab. As per Electricity Supply Regulation no.64.5.1; in case the meter  is found running slow by more than 3%, before replacing the meter, the consumer is to be asked to give  an undertaking in writing that he will pay the additional charges, if the meter on actual testing in M.E. Lab is found to be running slow. Similarly Regulation no.64.6  provides that:  that after removing the old meter, it should be replaced with a new meter after charging the meter changing fee and that the meter, on removal, should be sent to the ME Laboratory within a  maximum period of 15 days and the account of the consumer should be adjusted immediately on receipt of the test results of ME Lab. Thus raising of a demand  without the checking of the meter  in ME Lab is premature and against  the rules and regulations of the PSPCL. It was also pleaded that meter was taken away in loose condition  without getting it sealed and  packed. Thus, the opposite parties raised the impugned demand by  violating  their own instructions. In the complaint before  District Forum, complainants sought  directions to the opposite parties for quashing the illegal demand of Rs.2,70,932/-,  raised vide memo no.761 dated 23.12.2010. Compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, on account of  harassment, mental tension and physical agony, along with litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- was also prayed.

4.     Upon notice, the opposite parties  filed joint written reply    taking the preliminarily objection that the complainant was not a consumer  as defined under the Consumer Protection Act,1986, as he was the holder of a medium supply Industrial connection  for running the Ice Factory having sanctioned load of 42.840 KW. It was a big unit and the complainant had paid more than Rs.7,00,000/- as electricity bills in the past two years. While admitting that the electric connection, bearing account no.MS-11/0004Y, was installed  in the premises of the complainant, it was pleaded that same was checked on 29.10.2010 by  Additional SE Enforcement-II of P.S.P.C.L in the presence  of the complainant and the current recorded by all the three phases of the meter was noted. The accuracy of the meter was also tested at site with the help of ERS Meter on LT side and same was found recording less energy. Dial test of the meter was also done through ERS Meter. On comparison, it was found that ERS meter recorded 0.385 Units while the meter of complainant  recorded 0.230 units during the  period of testing . After making  the calculations, as per rules, it was found that  meter  was  recording 41.91% less  energy, which  was due  to the non contribution of CT PT unit to the meter. The meter, alongwith CT PT unit,  was changed and a new meter with new CT PT unit was  installed  at the premises of the complainant in his presence. Accordingly, the account of the complainant was overhauled  as per regulation  21.4 of  Supply Code for the last six months  and a demand to the tune of Rs.2,70,932/-  was raised,  vide notice dated  23.12.2010. Since the complainant had been consuming the electricity  and was not  being billed for the full consumption, he was liable to pay the  demanded amount .Denying all other allegations,  dismissal of the complaint with costs was prayed.

5.       Both the sides produced evidence before the District Forum, in support of their respective averments, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint , in aforesaid terms.

6.      Aggrieved by this order, the opposite  parties have come up in appeal on the ground that the demand of Rs.2,70,932/-  was raised  through notice dated  23.12.2010.   on the strength of checking report Ex. R1/C4 dated 29.10.2010. During the checking of the meter at site with the help of ERS meter on the LT side of meter, it was found recording less energy to the extent of 41.9% due to non-contribution of the CT PT unit. The account of the consumer was overhauled for six months as per regulations 21.4 of the Supply Code. Learned District Forum has wrongly held that since the meter was not got tested in the ME lab, the account of the complainant could not have been overhauled. Acceptance of the appeal and setting-aside of the impugned order was prayed. 

7.                We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and carefully perused the evidence on record.

8.                Admittedly, complainant no.2 was having an electric connection, bearing A/c No. MS-11/004Y,  which was checked by Additional Superintending Engineer, Enforcement-II, Ludhiana, on 29.10.2010, in the presence of the complainant. The perusal of this checking report (Ex.R-1) reveals that the working of the meter was tested at site by the checking squad with the help of an ERS meter on LT side and during the checking, the meter  recorded 0.280 units, while the ERS meter recorded 0.385 units. Accordingly, the meter was declared running slow by 41.91% due to non contribution of CT PT unit. This report is supported by the affidavit (EX.RW-1/A) submitted by Daljit Singh, Additional SE Enforcement-II, PSPCL, Ludhiana. Thereafter, the defective meter was removed and account of the complainant was overhauled and an amount of Rs. 2,70,932/- was raised, vide notice no. 761 dated 23.12.2010 (Ex. R3); in which it was clearly mentioned that the account of the complainant was being overhauled as per Regulation  21.4 of Electricity Supply Code and related Regulations 2007.

9.                The contention of the complainant is that the disputed meter was never got tested in the ME lab as per instruction and therefore, his account could not have been overhauled. Whereas the case of the OPs is that working of the meter was tested by the flying squad “at site” with the help of ERS meter and therefore, no separate testing was required to be got done from the ME lab.

10.              The Regulation 21.4 of the Electricity Supply Code and related matters Regulations 2007 provides as under:

        Defective meters

        (a)     The Licensee will have the right to test any meter and              related apparatus installed at a consumer's premises if              there is a reasonable doubt about its accuracy and the           consumer will provide the Licensee all necessary
                  assistance in conducting the test. The consumer will                have the right to be present during such testing.

                  (b)     (i)      A consumer may request the Licensee to                test   the meter/metering equipment installed in his
                  premises, if he doubts its accuracy. The Licensee will              undertake such          “site testing” within seven days on
                  payment of fee as specified in the Schedule of General                    Charges approved by the Commission.

                       (ii)      If after testing, the meter is found to be
             defective then the fee deposited in accordance with
             Regulation 21.4 (b) (i) will be refunded by adjustment in           the electricity bills for the immediately succeeding
             months. In case the meter is found to be correct then               such fee will be forfeited by the Licensee.

Thus, the testing of the meter of the complainant “at site” was in accordance with the Regulation 21.4. Once the meter has been tested at site in “as found conditions along with the CT PT unit”, its subsequent testing in the ME lab is not, at all, warranted. Since the account of the complainant was overhauled for a period of six months prior to the date of testing on the basis of test results of testing done at site on 29.10.2010 as per the standing instructions, the amount so claimed by the OPs is duly payable by the complainant.

11.              In view of the above discussions, the appeal of appellants/Opposite parties is allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint of the respondents/complainants is dismissed. No order as to costs

12.              The appellants have deposited Rs. 1000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. The amount of Rs. 1000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant No. 2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.

13.              The arguments in this case were heard on 02.12.2014 and the order was reserved.  Now, the order be communicated to the parties.

14.              The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                          (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

                                                          (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                               MEMBER         

December     05 , 2014                                       

RK 2