Complainant Vipan Kumar, has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to set aside the notice no.544 dated 30.9.2013 and subsequent letters and not to recover the amount mentioned in bill dated 16.4.2014 and also to refund/adjust the illegal recovery of sundry charges amounting to Rs.71,265/- already recovered from him. The opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is having electric connection No.SP120141X(12/141) and paying its bills regularly and as such is the consumer of the opposite parties. The meter was installed in the month of January 2009 and it continued for about one year. In the month of January 2010 its reading was recorded as 4627 units vide bill dated 13.2.2010. The status of the meter was “O” meaning thereby “O.K”. He has further pleaded that on 28.1.2010 this meter was removed from outside his premises vide MCO No.12/74795, whereby the meter reading was 4635 units. This meter was allegedly checked on 15.7.2013 by the opposite parties in his absence and they have illegally noted the last meter reading as 46353 units as per their memo No.544 dated 30.9.2013. Actually he has not consumed 46353 units. He has next pleaded that on 15.8.2010 he received a bill wherein he was charged for the consumption of 1102 units and opposite parties has illegally included Rs.71,265/- as sundry charges. He requested the opposite parties to explain how this heavy amount is charged but they told him that he can approach the Dispute Settlement Committee after depositing 1/3rd of the amount. Then he deposited Rs.23,775/- vide receipt no.BA16 No.378/8795 dated 27.8.2010 under pressure of disconnection of electricity but the matter was not referred to the Dispute Settlement Committee by the opposite parties and finally he was threatened that his connection will be disconnected if he will not deposit the balance 2/3rd amount and he under pressure deposited this alleged recovery vide cheque No.324933 dated 27.1.2011 for Rs.64,855/- which includes consumption charges also. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and he is entitled for its refund/adjustment in the future bill. He has further pleaded that he was surprised to receive another bill dated 16.4.2014 for the period from 26.2.2014 to 28.3.2014 whereby the opposite parties has again illegally included Rs.1,07,716/- as sundry charges and this bill was for the consumption of 362 units and for this, bill was of total amount of Rs.1,10,280/-. By again including Rs.1,07,716/- as sundry charges in the bill dated 16.4.2014, it again amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As a matter of fact when the old meter was removed from outside his premises its correct reading was 4635 units whereas after the gap of 3.1/2 years when the opposite parties alleged to have checked the meter in the M.E. Lab, they have illegally noted the reading as 46353 units meaning thereby that after the removal from outside his premises and up till the alleged checking the meter, this meter has jumped to 46353 units for which he is not liable to pay the alleged heavy illegal amount demanded by the opposite parties. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply submitted therein that an electric connection bearing Account No.SP12 0141X is running in the name of the complainant with sanctioned load 13.55 K.W. It was incorrect that the actual reading of the meter was 4627 units. It was again submitted that an application was moved by the complainant/consumer on 28.1.2010 at morning to the SDO of this Sub-Division mentioning therein that the block of the Meter of his connection No.SP 12/141 has burnt and the same be replaced against the payment of the requisite charges. After receiving the application it was immediately marked to the Er.Sukhwinder Singh JE of the area who visited the spot same day and recorded the particulars alongwith the position of the Meter as following:-
The meter was checked at the spot. The terminal block of the meter has heated up (The block has burnt). The meter has been affixed in the MCB box. The particulars of the meter are as under: Sr.No.715141, Amp 3 x 10 – 60, MakeAVON Reading 46301”.
On the same day he deposited the cost of the meter in the tune of Rs.670/- and the meter was replaced in the presence of consumer Vipan Kumar at evening (vide MCO No.12/74795 dated 28.1.2010) who signed the consent letter in order to check the meter in ME Lab in his absence. The particulars of the meter have been mentioned in the consent letter in the presence of the consumer Vipan Kumar. The reading at the time of removal of the meter was recorded as 46353 units in the presence of the consumer. After removing the meter it was immediately packed at the spot in a cardboard box for getting it checked from the ME Lab Batala. This meter was produced in the ME Lab Batala vide Challan No.42 dated 15.7.2013 by the Sucha Singh J.E., where it was checked and block of the meter was found burnt but its seals were O.K. The meter was in order and its reading was recorded as 46353. Enforcement Department prepared a separate report regarding this checking. It was directed that the consumption of 4627 units have already been charged as per the consumption data and the consumption of difference of 46353-4627 = 41726 units yet remains to be paid by the consumer. The internal Audit Department of the opposite party directed the answering respondents to recover the cost of 16605 units inadvertently and a notice was issued to the consumer for the payment of these charges and the consumer deposited amount partly. As per the report of M.E.Lab Batala another notice for Rs.1,20,033.00 as the cost of remaining 25121 units vide Memo No.544 dated 30.9.2013 was sent and the consumer is responsible to deposit the remaining amount. As such the consumer is liable to make the payment of 41726 units which he has consumed. The last reading of 46353 units was recorded in the presence of consumer. It has been next stated that the meter reader inadvertently used to note the first four digits of the meter reading and the remaining one digit could not be noted and the Meter Reader has been charge-sheeted for this mistake. When the meter of this Account Number was removed from the premises of the consumer, the last reading was recorded as 46353 in the presence of the consumer and this reading has been certified by the consumer. As such he is liable to make payment of the same. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and closed the evidence.
5. On the other, counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavits of Sh.Baljit Singh S.D.O. PSPCL Ex.OP-1, of Sukhwinder Singh J.E. Ex.OP-14, of Sucha Singh J.E.Ex.OP15 and of Vidya Sagar S.D.O. Meter Equipment Ex.OP16 alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP13 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. From the pleadings and evidence on record we observe that the OP service providers had installed the Electric Meter in question sometime in the month of November’ 2008 and issued the First Bill Ex.C1 with initial reading as: 005 with Meter status as: C and that is quite understandable and in order so far and up to the Bill Ex.C11 when the final Meter reading on 27.01.2010 read as: 4627; And, then the Meter was changed on 28.01.2010 as confirmed vide Ex.C12 the Memo # 544 of 30.09.2013 duly signed by the OP’s SDO with the Meter Reading as: 46353 read on 15.07.2013 i.e., after a period of 3½ years of the MCO (Meter Changing Orders) and it does not explain as to how the meter reading figure first changed to 4631 and 4635 on 28.01.2010 and finally to 46353 with the Meter being repetitively reported as ‘burnt’ throughout this period. This vividly speaks of the sad state of affairs governing the raising and issuance of the consumption Bills upon the consumers and the callous attitude of the OP officials towards its customers. The Exhibits Ex.C13 to Ex.C16 further corroborates the revealed deficiency in service on the part of the OP service providers. The rebuttal defense in which the OP have opted ‘refuge’ is still the more amusing. As per the defense put forth by the OP corporation its employee Manmohan Beri, the Lineman Meter Reader connived with the complainant and noted/ recorded the first four-digits of the reading only, thus ‘ignoring’ the last digit of the reading to ‘benefit’ the consumer complainant. Somehow, the OP even at the asking of the follow-up legal action taken up/ initiated against the perpetuators of the alleged crime ‘fraud’ could not produce any satisfactory proof of the same. The only documents it could produce were the copies of the mere ‘show cause’ explanatory letters/ reminders issued to the employee in the year 2013 whereas the ‘revelation’ of the crime committed had surfaced in the year 2010, itself; as per the OP’s own claims etc. However, it has been the prerogative of the OP corporation as to how to deal with the alleged crime (fraud) committed against it but for certain the OP cannot legally manage to extract money from its ‘consumers’ in the name of the alleged crime having been committed and that too in connivance with its own employees.
8. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties to withdraw the Electricity Bill dated 16.04.2014 setting aside the Memo # 544 of 30.09.2013 and also to refund the sundry deposits made by the complainant besides to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of orders till actually paid.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
April 13, 2015. Member
*MK*
