Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1558

Jagat Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSEB - Opp.Party(s)

R.L.Luthra

19 Mar 2015

ORDER

First Additional Bench

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,

DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.1558 of 2011 

 

                                              Date of institution: 28.10.2011.  

                                                          Date of Decision:    19.03.2015.

 

Jagat Pal aged about 55 years s/o Sh.Shankar Lal, H.No.613, New Puneet Nagar, Gali No.4, Tajpur Road, Near New Jail, Ludhiana.

                                                      .….Appellant/ Complainant

                                      Versus

1. PSPC Ltd through its Senior Executive Engineer, Focal Pint Division (Special), Focal Point, Ludhiana.
2. A.E.E.(Commercial), Focal Pint Division (Special) Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Focal Point, Ludhiana.

                                                   ..…Respondents/Opposite parties.

 

First Appeal against order dated 05.09.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.

Before:-

                Shri J.S.Klar, Presiding Judicial Member

                Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

Present:-

                For the appellant      :  Sh.Bhuwan Luthra, Advocate

   For the respondent  :   Ms.Meena Bansal, Advocate

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member

                This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (complainant in the complaint) against the respondents of this appeal (opposite parties in  the complaint) under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against order dated 05.09.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, (hereinafter called the ‘District Forum’) in  Consumer Complaint No.245 of 2011, vide which, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

2.             The brief facts of the case are that Sh.Jagat Pal complainant filed the complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs on the averments that electric connection bearing account No.FD01/0091K (Domestic) was having the sanctioned load of 0.52 KW under domestic category, which was installed by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant and he was paying the consumption bills thereof in time.  Nothing was due against the complainant, as consumption charges.  It was alleged that OP issued the bill on 24.5.2009, in which, the consumption was shown as 2000 units for the period 03.03.2009 to 03.05.2009.  On the receipt of this bill, the complainant contacted the OP and requested them for verification of the meter, but the officials of the OPs never  corrected the bill inspite of the several visits of the complainant.  It was alleged that the OP illegally disconnected the electric connection and removed the meter of the complainant in the year of 2010.  In 2010, the complainant again visited the office of the OP and requested for the restoration of the electric connection.  The officials of the OP directed him to deposit Rs.20,479/-.  He was not in a position to deposit such a huge amount, as such he was compelled to face the darkness without any fault.  It was further pleaded that a few days back, when he again visited the office of the OPs, where the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.20,479/-.  It was alleged that the demand raised by the OP is neither legal nor genuine, since the complainant has got one electric connection with sanctioned load of mere 0.52 KW load and was using the connection with the same load.  It was further alleged that the readings of the electric meter recorded by the official of the OPs were not correct.  Hence, he filed the complaint seeking direction to the OPs to quash the demand of Rs.20,479/- and to restore the electric connection of the complainant and recover the consumption charges on the basis of the load and demand factor and further prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of his mental harassment by the OPs.

3.             The complaint was contested by OPs by filing the written reply before District Forum and preliminary objections were raised that complainant had concealed the material facts.  On merits, it was admitted that electric connection No.PD-01/0091, was sanctioned to the complainant.  As per the statement of account of the said connection, regularly bills were issued against the said connection.  In 5/2009 consumption of 2000 units were duly recorded by the meter.  It was further pleaded that bill dated 7/2009 is for the consumption of 1682 units, bill dated 9/2009 for the consumption of 287 units were issued to the complainant.    However, the complainant failed to deposit the amount of the bills amounting to Rs.20479/-.  It was further pleaded that the complainant had never challenged the working of the meter at any occasion nor had deposited the bill amount for the consumption charges.  Other allegations of the complainant were denied by the OPs and dismissal of the complaint was prayed for.

4.             The complainant tendered in evidence her own affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-7 and closed the evidence.  The OPs tendered in evidence the affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to R-3 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum, the instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant now appellant against the same.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

7.             The electric connection bearing account No.FD01/0091 K (Domestic) having sanctioned load of 0.52 KW was installed by the OPs in the name of the complainant under domestic category.  The main point of controversy before us is that the complainant received the bill dated 24.5.2009 vide Ex.C-1, which shows that new reading is 3460 and old reading 1460 units and for the period 03.03.2009 to 03.05.2009 consumption is of 2000 units.  The plea taken by the OPs is that the bill dated 24.5.2009 was sent to the complainant on actual consumption basis.

8.             We have perused the consumption data, which is placed on record by the OPs vide Ex.R-1, which shows that in the month of 3/8, 5/8, 9/8, 11/8, 2/09, 5/09 in which consumption was shown as 22 units,16 units, 84 units, 16 units, 14 units and 2000 units.  The sanctioned load of the electric connection of the complainant is only 0.52 KW.  It is not possible for him to consume 2000 units within two months (i.e. the period 3/3/2009 to 03.05.2009). Consumption data clearly proves that the meter was faulty.  Therefore, the recording of consumption from  14 units to 2000 units which is not possible at a sanctioned load of 0.52 KW unless the energy is used unauthorizedly.  The complainant challenged the reading of the meter dated 08.06.2009 vide Ex.C-2.  The matter of issuing exorbitant bills to the complainant were in the knowledge of OPs.  However, they failed in their duties by not providing any guidance to complainant about it nor they told him to deposit the meter checking fees in order to get the meter tested in the ME Lab.  It was their duty to get the matter investigated at their own level and take appropriate action to check the working of the meter or to justify the excessive consumption recorded by it due to some other occasions like marriage function of the complainant or other celebrations during the above period.  As per the instructions of the OPs, the exception in variations in consumption is to be verified after entering the same in the variation register, which was not done by the OPs.  The District Forum did not appreciate the facts and rather dismissed the complaint.

9.             Sequel to the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is accepted by setting-aside the order of the District Forum and the complaint is allowed and OPs are directed to check the meter of the complainant in ME Lab and complainant is directed to deposit the meter challenge fees with the OPs in order to check the functionality of his meter within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  Further OPs are also directed to issue a fresh demand on the basis of electricity consumption after receiving the test report from ME Lab of this meter in accordance therewith, if any.

10.           The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                             (J.S.Klar)

                                                                Presiding Judicial Member

 

 

March 19, 2015                                              (Vinod Kumar Gupta)

Lb/-                                                                               Member