DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.40/20.03.2008 Decided on : 05.09.2008 Gurtej Singh S/o Sh.Gurnam Singh S/o Sh.Balla Singh, Village Bir Khurd, Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, Bhikhi, District Mansa. ..... Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Bimal Chander, counsel for the complainant. Sh.G.K.Mangla, counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Gurtej Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, Bhikhi (hereinafter called as the opposite party) for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to waive off the surcharge amounting Rs.40,589/-, restore his electric connection and also pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs . Admitted facts of the case are that the father of the complainant Sh.Gurnam Singh had obtained a domestic electric connection bearing Account No.BR34-0058-SW from the opposite party. He has since died on 11.11.2005 and the said electric connection is being used by the complainant. He is paying the electric consumption bills regularly and as such is a consumer of the OP Board. Contd........2 : 2 : In the month of March/April, 2005, a new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant which was already defective and due to this defect the said meter started jumping. On the basis of the reading taken from the defective meter, a bill No.10681 dated 20.8.2005 was issued to him. The units consumed were shown as 4979 in this bill and an amount of Rs.19,760/- were demanded from the complainant. Upon receiving this inflated bill, the complainant approached the office of the OP and complained about the defective meter and requested for changing it. Despite the request of the complainant, the OP failed to change the meter and instead sent bills No.20973, 31348, 41781 and 52251 thereby demanding Rs.24280/-, 28750/-, 36030/- and 39250/- on the basis of the reading taken from the defective meter. After the issuing of the above bills, the OP Board changed the defective meter. Since the defective meter was never sent to the M.E. Laboratory for its checking, the complainant is not at all bound to pay the above inflated bills. The complainant further alleges that before the installation and removal of the above defective meter the consumption always remained the same. Due to the non depositing of the above bills by him, the electric connection of the complainant had been disconnected and the meter had been removed by the OP on 20.3.2008, as such, the OP is deficient in rendering service towards him. The complainant claims to have suffered mental tension and physical harassment on account of illegal demands raised from him. Hence this complaint. The opposite party filed its written version and raised certain legal objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint. On merits, it was admitted that the electric connection had been obtained by the father of the complainant and that the meter was disconnected through PDCO No.002/52224 dated 20.3.2008. It was contended that the meter was changed on the request of the complainant and in his presence, as his signatures have been taken at Sr.No.122 of the Contd........3 : 3 : attendance register. The complainant had deposited the meter challenge fee and had also filed his affidavit regarding testing of his meter and submitted that all the results of the checking of meter would be binding on him. After the receipt of his affidavit, the meter was sent to M.E. Laboratory vide challan dated 14.12.2007. The result of the meter was found within limit by the Senior Executive Engineer, M.E. Division, Bathinda vide his report dated 26.12.2007. It was contended that the demands raised from the complainant are claimed to be perfectly legal and valid. All other allegations were denied by the opposite party and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire evidence placed on record. To prove his stand, the complainant has placed reliance on Ext.C4,C5,C6 and C7 showing that the meter figures have jumped. A bare perusal of Ext.C4 shows consumption of 4979 units, in Ext.C5 consumption has been shown as 743 units, in Ext.C6 consumption is 1081 units and in Ext.C-7 consumption of 1707 units have been shown. These all readings pertains to Meter No.2470032 for the period w.e.f. 22.3.2005 to 23.1.2006, which has been challenged by the complainant by way of alleging that the meter was already defective when it was installed in his premises. Complainant has also placed reliance upon the bills issued to him prior to 22.3.2005. In Ext.C2 consumption has been shown as 399 units and in Ext.C3 it is 363 units. These bills are issued to the complainant on average basis which clearly reveals that the consumption of the complainant was within 300 to 400 units previously. The complainant has placed reliance upon bills Ext.C-8 to C-17 relating to meter No.4770. A bare perusal of these bills reveals that the consumption Contd........4 : 4 : of the complainant was 700, 283, 249, 106, 163, 15, 70, 160, 263 and 155 units respectively. Only bill Ext.C-8 in which consumption was shown as 700 units was issued on average basis and the rest of the bills Ext.C-9 to C-17 were issued on actual consumption basis which shows that the consumption of the complainant was within 200 to 300 units only. So it is clear that only bills exhibit C-4 to C-7 are highly excessive and the possibility of the meter being defective cannot be ruled out. The opposite party has placed reliance upon affidavit of the complainant, copy of which is Ext.OP-3. They are trying to take shelter behind this affidavit by saying that the complainant has submitted that all the results of the checking of the meter would be binding on him, but at Sr.No.5 of this affidavit (Ext.OP-3), meter No.4770 and bill No.26942 has been written. If we go by the stand of the OP and believe this affidavit of the complainant (Ext.OP8) to be correct, even then no checking report has been placed and proved on record by the Opposite party in respect of meter No.4770. But after going through the record of this case it is clear that the complainant has never raised any dispute regarding this meter. Perusal of the bills Ext.C-9 to C-17 issued to the complainant when this meter was installed, reveals that the consumption was within 200 to 300 units. Instead the complainant has alleged that upon receiving the inflated bills ( raised while Meter No.2470032 was installed) the complainant approached the office of the OP and complained about the defective meter (No.2470032) and requested for changing it. Despite the request of the complainant, the OP failed to change the meter and instead sent excessive bills on the basis of the reading taken from the defective meter. After the issuing of the above bills, the OP Board changed the defective meter. Since the defective meter No.2470032 was never sent to the M.E. Laboratory for its checking, the complainant is not at all bound to pay the above inflated bills. The OP has further placed reliance upon Ext.OP-8, copy of the attendance register in which at Sr. No.122 the signatures of the Contd........5 : 5 : complainant at the M.E. Laboratory are shown to be present. Ext.OP-9 is the result of the challenge meter and at Sr.No.1 of this report the results are shown to be within limit. The details of the testing of the meter are not disclosed. Checking report Ext.OP-9 does not show in clear terms how and in what manner it has been concluded that the results are within limit. Mere fact that copy of the checking report has been brought on record by the opposite party, its version cannot be said to have been proved on any count. It can thus be held that this report is incomplete and only on the basis of this report the complainant cannot be made liable to pay the inflated bills, which in our opinion is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not bound to pay these charges. Thus virtually there is no evidence to prove the checking report, copy of which is Ex.OP-9. Opposite party has further argued that bill dated 20.8.05, 17.10.05, 17.12.05, 18.2.06 and 16.4.06 are beyond limitation. We do not agree with this contention of the OP on the ground that a continuity of the cause of action is prevailing here. It cannot be said to be beyond limitation as complainant was going from pillar to post for getting his meter tested by requesting the OP vide his application dated 22.11.2007 and by depositing meter challenge fee. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no other escape but to hold that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing bills dated 20.8.05, 17.10.05, 17.12.05, 18.2.06 and 16.4.06 to the complainant, through which demand of Rs.40,589/- has been made on account of sur-charge, is writ large. Demand is illegal and arbitrary, and as such the complainant deserves the waiver of this amount . Resultantly the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to waive off the sur charge amounting Rs.40,589/- on the above referred bills (Ext.C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8). The OP is also burdened with Rs.1000/- as litigation costs. Compliance of the order be made within two Contd........6 : 6 : months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 05.09.2008. Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
