DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 68 of 14-03-2007<br /> Decided on : 15-05-2007 <br /> <br /> Rajvir Singh S/o Ram Singh R/o Street No. 27/28, Ajit Road, Bathinda. <br /> ...Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2.. S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, Cantt. Sub Division,Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite party : Sh. Sukhbir Singh Dhillon, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. B-11/0690-F G. Electricity meter installed at his premises is defective. It is not giving proper reading. Application dated 19.4.06 was moved by him to the opposite parties pointing out defect in the meter. Despite this, no action was taken to change the meter or to remove the defect. After application was filed, opposite parties did not issue the bills. Bill dated 10.11.2006 for Rs. 2160/- was issued. Again he moved application dated 23.11.06 for allowing him to deposit the bill under protest. Till today, meter has not been changed nor defect has been rectified. Bills are being issued on average basis. He is being un-necessarily burdened with excessive bills and harassment is being caused to him. His average consumption in a month was 15/20 units. Bill dated 9.3.07 issued by the opposite parties is illegal and excessive. He approached the opposite parties with a request to change the meter or remove the defect and issue bills as per actual consumption, but to no effect. In these circumstances, he alleges deficiency in service on their part. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by him seeking direction from this Forum to opposite parties to change the meter or remove the defect in it; issue bills as per actual consumption; adjust the excess amount already paid by him in future bills; pay Rs. 2160/- which have already been deposited by him; Rs. 10,000/- as damages plus cost of forced litigation and quash bill dated 9.3.07.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainant has failed to get the matter referred to Chief Electrical Inspector Punjab or Dispute Settlement Committee of the Punjab State Electricity Board. On merits, they admit that complainant is holder of electricity connection. They further admit that meter was defective. No application was received in their office from the complainant. They are well within their right to recover the charges on average basis for the period meter remained inoperative as per Regulation No. 73 of Electricity Supply Regulations. Complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, he has filed his affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-8), photocopy of application dated 19.4.06 (Ex. C-2), bill dated 10.11.06 (Ex. C-3), photocopy of bill receipt (Ex. C-4), photocopy of application dated 23.11.06 (Ex. C-5), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-6) and photocopy of bill dated 9.3.07 (Ex. C-7).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Kirpal Singh, S.D.O. (Ex. R-1), photocopy of M.C.O. (Ex. R-2) and photocopy of Sales Regulations page No. 160 (Ex. R-3) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard 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 /> 6. Some facts are not in dispute in this case. They are that complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection. Electricity meter installed in his premises had become defective. Opposite parties started issuing the bills on average basis.<br /> 7. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the complainant are that meter installed in the premises of the complainant had become defective. Accordingly application dated 19.4.06 was submitted by the complainant to opposite party No. 2. Despite this, neither meter was change nor defect was removed. Bills were being issued on average basis. Again he moved application dated 23.11.06 as the meter was not changed nor the defect was rectified. Bill issued on 9.3.07, copy of which is Ex. C-7 shows an amount of Rs. 1557/- for supply of power. He asserts that this bill is illegal, null and void and excessive. Meter has been removed as per Ex. R-2 on 10.3.07 with inordinate delay. Opposite parties could at the most charge the minimum charges @ Rs. 30/- per K.W. as per tariff shown on the back of the Bill dated 10.11.06 which is Ex. C-3.<br /> 8. Mr. Dhillon, learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments by submitting that tariff mentioned on the back of bill Ex. C-3 cannot be applied in the case in hand. Meter from the premises of the complainant was changed on 10.3.07 on the basis of Meter Change Order, copy of which is Ex. R-2 and it is to be got checked and complainant would be bound by the results.<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 10. Admittedly there is delay in removing the defective meter from the premises of the complainant. This itself is no ground to hold deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. No doubt, tariff on the back of bill Ex. C-3 has been given. In our view this tariff is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Here we are dealing with the case of defective meter. So far as this tariff is concerned, it is payable @ Rs. 30/- per K.W. even if there is no consumption of electricity. They are the minimum charges which are payable at this rate. In the case of defective meters, relevant Regulation of Electricity Supply Regulations is 73.1.2, copy of which is Ex. R-3. It is reproduced as under :-<br /> “73.1.2 – So far as charging the consumer for the period the meter remained inoperative is concerned, 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, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption as under and higher of the two figures shall be charged to set the consumer's account right finally.<br /> CONSUMPTION PER CYCLE<br /> DS Consumers NRS consumers<br /> Upto 2 KW Load 100 Units/KW 100 Units/KW <br /> Exceeding 2 KW and upto 5 KW 200+60 Units/KW 200+60 Units/KW <br /> of load in excess load in excess of 2 of 2 KW KW <br /> Load Exceeding 5 KW 380+40 Units/KW 760+80 Units/KW <br /> of load in excess of of load in excess of 5 KW of 5 KW<br /> 11. According to the criteria laid down under the above referred Regulation, opposite parties are well within their right to claim the charges on average basis. Learned counsel for the complainant failed to show us that the bills issued on average basis are not according to this regulation. Even bill dated 9.3.07, copy of which is Ex. C-7 is on connected load basis. Except the bills dated 10.11.07 and 9.3.07, no other bill has been brought on record by the complainant to show that the amount claimed in them was excessive. After the removed meter is got checked from the competent authority, the account will have to be overhauled. Hence there can be said to be no prejudice to the complainant on account of the fact that bills are issued to him on average basis. In case the amount paid is found excessive, the same can be adjusted in the future bills. If it is found less, complainant would be liable to pay as per the report after the account is overhauled.<br /> 12. As a result of what has been discussed, crux of the matter is that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, complaint is meritless and the same is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 15-05-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member