DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 305 of 31.10.2007<br /> Decided on : 24-01-2008 <br /> <br /> Vijay Kumar Gupta aged about 61 years S/o Sh. Ram Sarup Gupta, R/o Raj Mandir, B-4, Civil Lines, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.A.E.E./S.D.O. Civil Lines Sub Division, P.S.E.B. Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J. D. Nayyar, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw bill dated 19.10.07 to the extent of sundry charges of Rs. 21,968/-; pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and botheration besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that he is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. MR-34-0383-L at his premises. Meter was changed in December, 2006 in order to install new electronic meter as per scheme of Punjab State Electricity Board (Here-in-after referred to as 'Board'). Replaced meter was okay at that time. Seals on it were intact. It might have been sent to M.E. Laboratory in routine without packing or sealing it in cardboard box. His signatures were not obtained on Meter Change Order. On 19.10.07 bill for Rs. 54,386/- payable upto 2.11.07 was received in which a sum of Rs. 21,968/- has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances. He assails this bill as illegal, null and void and against rules and regulations on the grounds that details of the amount have not been given; no separate notice for this amount has ever been issued to him; he was not called in M.E. Laboratory nor any notice regarding the checking of the meter was served upon him; checking of the meter, if any, is one sided; meter was not packed or sealed in cardboard box nor his signatures were obtained; even meter was not removed in his presence; there is no variation of consumption of energy after or before the removal of meter prior to the issuance of the bill in question, there was no dispute regarding working of the meter; record of the opposite parties shows status of the meter as 'O' means O.K; condition of the meter was not shown to him at the time of its installation or its removal; no official ever pointed out any type of defect in the meter although it was being checked by many officials; no objections were called before issuing the bill to defend his case and meter was not sent to Chief Electrical Inspector to Government of Punjab, Patiala. It is further added by him that officials of the opposite parties were requested to know the details of the amount of Rs. 21,968/- and they made false excuse of theft of electricity although he did not commit any theft of electricity. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed reply of the complaint taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no cause of action to file it; complainant has not come with clean hands; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainant is not consumer and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, they admit the installation of the electricity connection in the premises of the complainant. According to them, the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was accurate. Meter was replaced with an electronic meter. Removed meter was duly packed and sealed for sending it to the M.E. Laboratory. Condition of the old meter was to be observed by the M.E. Laboratory after opening it. Meter was changed due to its 'D' code. Bills were sent to the complainant on the basis of average for the months of 12/2006 to 4/2007. Account of the complainant was checked by the audit party. It has been detected that an amount of Rs. 21,968/- is recoverable from the complainant on average basis which has been calculated on the basis of actual consumption of previous two bills for the months of 8/2006 and 10/2006 as per rules. Consumption recorded by the new meter is more than the one which was being shown by the replaced meter. Complainant was liable to make payment of the amount of Rs. 21,968/-. They deny that the impugned bill is illegal to the extent of Rs. 21,968/- on the grounds mentioned in the complaint. Similarly they do not admit the remaining averments of the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2) and photocopies of bills (Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-9).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Er. R.K. Singla, A.E.E. (Ex. R-1), photocopy of ledger (Ex. R-2), photocopy of Meter Change Order (Ex. R-3) and Detail of Amount charged in A/c No. MR-34/383 (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite parties.<br /> 7. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant argued that amount of Rs. 21,968/- shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 19.10.07 for Rs. 54,386/- is illegal, null and void as complainant was not committing theft of energy on the grounds and on the remaining averments mentioned in the complaint. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavits of the complainant which are Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 and copies of the bills Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-9.<br /> 8. Mr. Nayyar, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that infact meter of the complainant was changed by the officials of the Board due to 'D' code. Meter was duly packed and sealed for being sent to M.E. Laboratory. Account of the complainant was checked by the audit party and it has been detected that amount of Rs. 21,968/- was recoverable on average basis from him for the bills sent i.e. of 12/2006, 2/2007 and 4/2007. Average is to be considered on the basis of previous two bills of 8/2006 and 10/2006 as per rules. Amount recoverable to the tune of Rs. 21,968/- has been rightly calculated. Moreover, the consumption of electricity recorded by the new meter is more than the one shown by the previous meter.<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 10. Opposite parties are not claiming the amount of Rs. 21,968/- on the allegation that complainant was found committing theft of energy or the removed meter was got checked from the M.E. Laboratory. They are claiming the amount on the ground that bills sent on average basis should be as per rules. When it is considered as per Sales Regulation on the basis of the previous bills of 8/2006 and 10/2006 it comes to 4724 units bi-monthly. Complainant admits that his meter was changed and in its place new electronic meter was installed. Copy of the Meter Change Order dated 20.3.07 is Ex. R-3. A perusal of this document reveals that previous meter was replaced with a new one on 28.3.07. In the bill of 2/2007 code of the meter was 'D' which means that it was out of order/defective. In such a situation, bills are sent on average basis as per Sales Regulation No. 73.1.2. It envisages that so far as charging the consumer for the period the meter remained in operative is concerned, the average consumption of last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption if any which ever is higher would be compared with the consumption as per criteria laid down and higher of the 2 figures would be charged to set the consumer's account right finally. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that audit party as per its report, copy of which is Ex. R-2 has taken the basis for calculating the average consumption from 7/06 to 9/06 and accordingly average bi-monthly units have been taken as 4724 units which is not as per Sales Regulation No. 73.1.2. No doubt for taking the average units, audit party has considered the period as 7/06 to 9/06 but it would assume no significance particularly in view of the details of the amount charged to the account of the complainant. For the purposes of considering the average, opposite parties could consider the consumption of last 4 or 6 months. Code of the meter was 'D' in circle 2/07. Previous bi-monthly bill was of 12/06. When code of the meter was 'T'. It means that Terminal seal was broken. In these circumstances, opposite parties could consider the consumption of two bi-monthly i.e. of 8/06 and 10/06 for calculating the average units for sending the bills to the complainant on average basis. Accordingly, they have considered the average taking into consideration the consumption of 8/06 and 10/06 which was 4622 and 4826 units respectively . When average is so considered, it comes to 4724 units bi-monthly. Amount of the bills for 12/06, 2/07 and 4/07 has been accordingly calculated taking the average consumption of 4724 units bi-monthly. Difference in SOP comes to Rs. 19970/- and difference in .E.D comes out to Rs. 1998/-. Accordingly total of Rs. 21968/- has been shown to be the difference which was chargeable and was not charged. It has been rightly shown in the bill dated 19.10.07 in the column of sundry charges and allowances. New meter was installed on 31.3.07. Consumption for the months of 8/07 and 10/07 is 4770 units and 6403 units respectively with the new meter which is beyond the average of 4724 Units. When this matter is taken into consideration, even then it cannot be said that excessive average of 4724 units bi-monthly has been taken for charging the amount of Rs. 21,968/-. Since this amount of Rs. 21,968/- has been charged as per rules, complainant is liable to pay it. No deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved particularly when the amount has been claimed on average basis and not on account of theft of energy or on the basis of checking of the replaced meter in the M.E. Laboratory.<br /> 11. In the result, complaint is meritless. Accordingly, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. <br /> Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 24-01-2008 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member