<br /> complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as<br /> amended upto date has been filed by complainant Swaran Singh against<br /> opposite parties i.e. PSEB through its Chairman and other<br /> functionaries seeking direction for rectification of impunged bills<br /> and further sought monetary compensation for mental agony and<br /> physical harassment on account of deficiency in service on the part<br /> of opposite parties<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint lie in narrow compass.<br /> Complainant had taken electric connection bearing A/c No.AB-13/0725<br /> having load of 0.98 KW for domestic purpose from the opposite parties<br /> and that he has been paying electricity bills regularly to the<br /> opposite parties in consideration of energy services provided to him.<br /> It is averred that his meter became defective and same was changed by<br /> the opposite parties but no fault was ever detected prior to its<br /> becoming defective. On 1.10.2005 opposite parties sent consumption<br /> bill for Rs.7505/- showing arrears as Rs.7089/- and that he enquired<br /> about the correctness of the bill being hafty. Opposite party No.3<br /> told that they have overhauled the account of the complainant and <br /> thereafter they charged the said amount in the bill as arrears and<br /> non-payment of which will lead to disconnection of electricity.<br /> Fearing from the threat of disconnection, he paid the disputed<br /> amount of Rs.7505/- in installments under protest He received another<br /> bill dated 1.12.2006 amounting to Rs.5631/- showing Rs.1505/- as<br /> arrears and Rs.3246/- as sundry charges and allowances. On enquiry<br /> the officials of the Board assured him that they would rectify the<br /> said bill but inspite of rectifying the bill, they sent another bill <br /> dated 3/2/2007 amounting to Rs. 6122/- showing Rs.5631/- as arrears<br /> Whereas the complainant was assured by the officials of the Board<br /> that amount of the bill would be corrected but later on refused to<br /> redress his grievances. Hence complainant has alleged deficiency in<br /> service on the part of opposite parties on account of issuance of<br /> impunged bills.<br /> <br /> Opposite parties appeared and controverted<br /> allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim.It is pleaded<br /> that meter of the consumer was defective due to burn as per report of<br /> the meter reader dated 17.11.2005 and meter of the consumer was<br /> changed vide MCO No.179/3.1.2006. The bill dated 1.10.2005 of<br /> Rs.7505/- including arrears of Rs.7089/- was sent to the complainant<br /> and same has been defended as valid and correct. The consumer did not<br /> deposit the full amount of the bills for the period 20/6/2005 to<br /> 4/8/2006 and he partly deposited the amount of said bills. So an<br /> arrears of Rs.7089/- stand against the consumer and the said amount<br /> was shown in the bill dated 1.10.2006. The consumer deposited<br /> Rs.6000/- out of Rs.7505/- in two installments and Rs.1505/- were due<br /> against the consumer out of the bill dated 1.10.2006. Again Rs.1505/-<br /> as arrears were shown in the bill dated 1.12.2006 and Rs.3246/- were<br /> charged in the said bill as sundry charges. . It is further pleaded<br /> that due to the defective/burnt meter, the account of the consumer<br /> was overhauled by the Internal Auditor vide half margin report No.9<br /> dated 5/11/2006 and recommended to recover the amount of Rs.3246/-<br /> from the consumer for the period 12/2005 to 2/2006 on the average of<br /> 770 units as fully detailed in the half margin report.. Consequenntly<br /> memo No.2018 dated 7/11/2006 was sent to consumer vide which he was<br /> asked to deposit Rs.3246/- as fully detailed in the said notice, but<br /> again the consumer defaulted to deposit the said amount and the<br /> said amount was charged in the bill dated 1/12/2006. Again taking<br /> compassionate view he was allowed to deposit the said amount of<br /> Rs.5631/- in five equal installments alongwith the current bill.<br /> Again he committed default in deposit, so bill dated 3/2/2007 for<br /> Rs.6122/-was sent to consumer including arrears of Rs.5631/-<br /> The consumer deposited Rs.1877/- only on 10/3/2007 out of the said<br /> amount.. Therefore, there is no question of any deficiency in service<br /> on the part of opposite parties. Complainant is liable to pay valid<br /> energy charges.<br /> In support of his version complainant Swaran Singh<br /> has produced in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith<br /> electricity bills ex.C2 to C4.<br /> On the other hand opposite parties produced in<br /> evidence affidavit of Er.Amrik Singh Ex.R1, and documents Ex.R2 to<br /> R8. We have heard arguments of learned counsel<br /> for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on<br /> the record. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently urged<br /> before us that electricity bills dated 1/10/2006 for Rs.7505/- <br /> showing arrears as Rs.7089/-, bill dated 1/12/2006 amounting to Rs.<br /> amounting to Rs.5631/- showing Rs.1505/- as arrears and Rs.3246/- as<br /> sundry charges and also last bill dated 3/2/2007 amounting to Rs.<br /> 6122/- including arrears of Rs.5631/- are ieelgal, null, void and<br /> contrary to the Sales Regulations of the Board. On the other hand <br /> learned counsel for the opposite parties has defended legality and<br /> validity of these bills as per actual consumption of electricity and<br /> also penalty on the average basis on account of meter becoming<br /> defective/burnt as per Regulation No.73 of the Sales Regulations.<br /> We have considered rival contentions of learned<br /> counsel for the parties. We find force partly in the contention of<br /> learned counsel for complainant in so far as impunged bill dated<br /> 1/12/2006 Ex.C2 is concerned, first bill dated 1/10/2006 Ex.C3 for<br /> total amount of Rs.7505/- showing arrears of Rs.7-90/-. Admittedly,<br /> consumer deposited Rs.6000/- out of bill of Rs.7505/- in two<br /> installments remaining outstanding balance of Rs.1505/-. The consumer<br /> also admitted vide his application dated 15/2/2007 Ex.R6 about part<br /> payment of Rs.6000/- leaving balance of Rs.1500/-. He has however,<br /> protested against the bill dated 1/12/2006 Ex.C2 for total amount of<br /> Rs.5631/- indicating arrears of Rs.1505/- and Rs.3246/- as sundry<br /> charges and allowances. The defence plea taken up by the opposite<br /> parties in the written statement and also in the affidavit Ex.R1 of<br /> Er.Amrik Singh officiating SDO that meter of the consumer was<br /> defective due to burn as per the report of meter reader dated <br /> 17/11/2005 and meter of the consumer was changed vide MCO<br /> No.180/3.1.2006 and bill dated 1/12/2006 was sent to consumer<br /> inclusive of Rs.3246/- as sundry charges on account of<br /> defective/burnt meter of the consumer and as per Internal Auditor<br /> report No.9 dated 6/11/2006 on average basis of 770 units which <br /> the consumer failed to deposit. Ex.R4 dated 3/1/2006 is the report<br /> about burnt meter by the meter reader and the billing is Ex.R5<br /> alongwith Internal Auditor report Ex.R3 dated 6/11/2006. We however,<br /> find non-compliance of the instructions as envisaged in regulation<br /> No.67.1 and 67.2 which mandates that damaged/burnt meter alongwith<br /> first report of the meter reader and meter inspector will be<br /> forwarded to ME Lab by AE/AEE within one week after damaged/burnt<br /> meter is replaced recovering cost of meter from the consumer. The<br /> officer Incharge of the ME Lab after carrying out test checks shall<br /> send his report to AE/AEE concerned within one month in case of<br /> various categories of consumer excepting LS and DS exceeding 100 KW<br /> and MS consumer. After receipt of the report of AE/AEE ME Lab case<br /> shall be decided and cost of estimated damage adjustable as under<br /> from the estimate got deposited from the consumer in the first<br /> instance.<br /> Evidently<br /> opposite party failed to produce the requisite document of ME Lab of<br /> estimated cost of damage on the basis of Internal Auditor report only<br /> and that too after much gap of ten months period. No doubt opposite<br /> party has given compassionate consideration to the consumer for<br /> payment of disputed amount or Rs. 5631/- in five equal installments<br /> to shield its illegal action by non-compliance with the Sales<br /> Regulations vide its letter Ex.R2 dated 15/2/2007 for imposing sundry<br /> charges and allowances of Rs.3246/-. The opposite party cannot<br /> justify imposition of amount of Rs.3246/- on account of alleged<br /> burnt meter on average basis. Though it is well justified to recover<br /> arrears of Rs.1505/- as shown in the bill Ex.C2.<br /> <br /> In the<br /> ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion, we quash the bill to the<br /> extent of Rs.3246/- and its proportionate surcharging over the said<br /> amount reflected in that bill and also subsequent bill dated<br /> 3/2/2007 Ex.C3. It is also worth to mention here that amount of <br /> Rs.1877/- was already deposited by the complainant at the time of<br /> interim stay order granted by this Forum vide order dated 13/3/2007<br /> and this amount of Rs.1505/- shown as arrears in the bill Ex.C2 be<br /> also adjusted. However, under the peculiar circumstances of the case,<br /> parties are left to bear their own cost.<br /> Let certified<br /> copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties<br /> without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to<br /> record room.<br /> dated ( Sudha Sharma ) (A.K. Sharma )<br /> 23.10.2007<br /> Member President.<br />