DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No:43/26.03.2008 Decided on : 23.07.2008 Ram Dhari S/o Sh. Hans Raj, Ward No.3, Budhlada, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Budhlada District Mansa. 2. X.E.N., Punjab State Electricity Board, Budhlada District Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. V.K.Goel, counsel for the complainant. Sh.P.K.Singla, counsel for the opposite parties. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: The present case has been remanded from the Hon'ble State Commission vide their order dated 20.12.2007 for deciding the case on merits. Ram Dhari (hereinafter called as the complainant) had filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Sub Divisional Officer and X.E.N at Budhlada, District Mansa (hereinafter called as opposite Parties) for issuance of a direction to the opposite parties for cancellation of demand notice No.740 dated 29.3.2006 Contd........2 : 2 : demanding Rs.68,746/- and also for a direction to pay him Rs.2,00,000/- by way of compensation on account of mental harassment along with Rs.300/- as litigation costs and Rs.5,500/- as counsel fee. Admitted facts of the case are that the complainant is the consumer of the ops with regard to electric connection bearing Account No.BP39/278 obtained by him for running an Atta Chakki. It is alleged that in September, 2001, the meter had jumped the figures and the ops had issued inflated bill of 2900 units. The complainant challenged the meter vide his application dated 28.09.2001 and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.450/-. It is further alleged that the ops had not replaced the meter till May, 2002 and in that month the meter figures again jumped indicating the consumption of 14024 units. The ops at that time suddenly came into action and replaced the meter of the complainant. The ops had been issuing bills for the subsequent period including the payment of the aforesaid inflated bills, but the complainant had been getting the bills corrected and depositing the current consumption charges. Subsequently, on the basis of the checking dated 21.3.2005 by the M.E.lab., letter No.740 dated 29.3.2006 was issued to the complainant by the ops vide which an amount of Rs.68,746/- was demanded from him. The representations of the complainant on different dates did not have any effect and ultimately his electric supply was stated to have been disconnected on 02.04.2006. The complainant alleges to have suffered monetary loss, as well as mental harassment on account of disconnection of his electric supply and loss of business. Hence this complaint. The Ops filed their written version and challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant was not the consumer of the Opposite parties as the connection was being used Contd........3 : 3 : for commercial purpose and that he has no cause of action to file the complaint On merits, consumption of 2900 units and 14024 units in the relevant months was stated to be correctly recorded. It was also contended that the meter was checked by the M.E. Laboratory, Bathinda on 21.3.05 with the consent of the complainant and it was found to be running slow. Accordingly a notice of demand was issued to him. Electric supply of the complainant was stated to have been disconnected for non-payment of the disputed amount. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service or the demand was in any way illegal. 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 scrutinized the entire evidence placed on record by them. The controversy regarding the complainant being a consumer of the OP, has already been decided by the Hon'ble State Commission vide their order dated 20.12.2007 and as per this order, the complainant is held to be the consumer of the OP Board. Now coming to the merits of the case regarding the meter reading during the months of September, 2001 and May, 2002 on account of defect in the metering equipment. The complainant has placed on record Exhibit C-3 vide which the complainant had challenged the defective meter and requested for testing of the meter in the M.E.lab by depositing the challenge fee on 28.9.2001, but despite the request of the complainant (exhibit C-5), the OPs failed to give any information in this Contd........4 : 4 : regard to him. In May, 2002 figures again jumped by 14024 units and the meter was changed in May, 2002. After the removal of the meter, it was never sent to the M.E. Laboratory for its testing till 2005. This fact has been admitted in the letter dated 23.11.2005 (exhibit C-7) written by the Asstt. Executive Engineer, Budhlada to Senior Executive Engineer, Budhlada. It has been mentioned in this letter that w.e.f. 10/2002 to 21/3/2005, for near about three years, Sh.Devinder Singh, J.E has kept the meter in his custody without getting it tested from the M.E. Laboratory, despite the fact that the complainant had challenged the disputed meter. Again vide letter No.1784 dated 20.3.2006 exhibit C-4 written by Sr.Executive Engineer, Distribution Division, Budhlada, an explanation of Sh.Ajaib Singh, AEE, Budhlada was called for taking disciplinary action against the said J.E., Sh.Devinder Singh for misleading the Board. All the grievances faced by the complainant and alleged in his complaint were mentioned in this letter which duly proves the negligence on the part of OP Board itself. In this letter the Board had duly admitted the faults committed by its officials from the date of removal of the meter i.e from 29.09.2001. Upon receiving the test reports from the M.E. Laboratory by the Sr.Executive Engineer himself only on 14.3.2006, the meter was found to be running slow, whereas the allegations of the complainant are about the jumping of the meter. The consumer Data in respect of the electric connection of the complainant, Exhibit C-8, under the signatures of the AEE, Budhlada shows that in the month of September, 2001, the meter had jumped the figures indicating the consumption of 2900 units and in May, 2002 the meter figures again jumped indicating the consumption of 14024 units. In neither of the months w.e.f. 2001 to 2005 as per this data, meter seemed to be running slow, as alleged by the OP in their letter Contd........5 : 5 : Exhibit C-4, wherein they have mentioned that the testing report dated 14.3.2006 revealed the slow running of the meter by (-0.20%, -0.86%, -1.04%, -0.70%). Rather the jumping of the meter, as alleged by the complainant in the above said two months ( 2900 units in September, 2001 and 14024 units in May, 2002) is crystal clear. Perusal of Sales Regulation No.71.2.2 of the OP Board itself, clearly reveals that, after the challenge fee is received, the meter should be sent to the M.E. Laboratory promptly after removal but in no case it should be delayed beyond a period of fifteen days from the date of removal of the meter from the consumer's premises. After the meter is received in the M.E.lab., it should be promptly tested and test results intimated to the AE/AEE/XEN (Ops) concerned by the M.E. Laboratory within a maximum period of seven days . The AE/AEE/XEN (Ops) will immediately intimate the result to the consumer and after getting his acceptance adjust accounts accordingly. The whole process should, in no case, take more than a month. In the present case, admittedly in accordance with Exhibit C-4 letter of the Sr. Executive Engineer, Budhlada itself, the meter was challenged by the complainant on 28.09.2001, removed by the OP vide order No.183/49778 on 03.10.2002, but sent to the M.E. Laboratory vide challan No.30 only on 21.03.2005 i.e after a gap of two and a half year.The OP Board thus totally failed to comply with the rules and regulations framed under Sales Regulations No.71.2.2 of the Board itself. The opposite parties have placed reliance on the written consent, obtained from the complainant in the shape of an affidavit (Exhibit OP-8). This document does not help them in any way because it is unattested and even without any specific date, rather on the back side of the stamp paper the Contd........6 : 6 : date of its issue is mentioned as 14.3.2005. If we go with this consent (exhibit OP-8), then also it seems that consent of the complainant for testing of his electric meter was obtained by the Ops after a gap of two and a half year whereas according to the Sales Regulation No.71.2.2. the meter should be sent to the M.E. Laboratory promptly after removal but in no case it should be delayed beyond a period of fifteen days from the date of removal of the meter from the consumer's premises. There is nothing on record to suggest that the opposite parties had acted in accordance with these Sales Regulations. The opposite parties, therefore, cannot shift the liability upon the complainant of its own faults. The opposite parties accordingly are held to be deficient in rendering services towards the complainant . An amount of Rs.68,746/- raised from the complainant in this regard is thus liable to be setaside. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice will be served by awarding costs and compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for mental harassment suffered by him. From the entire facts and circumstances, as well as the legal position discussed above, we are constrained to allow this complaint and set aside the disputed amount of Rs.68,746/- along with a direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/-, if deposited by the complainant in compliance of the interim order dated 27.11.2006. The opposite parties shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant by way of costs and compensation regarding mental harassment, as well as litigation costs. Compliance of the order shall be made within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to Contd........7 : 7 : the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 23.07.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
