BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR

                                                          C.C. No. 335 of 2014                                                               Date of Institution: 9.9.2014           

                                                          Date of Decision:  21.1.2015

Dr. K.N.S. Dhillon, aged 59 years, son of Jagjit Singh, C/o Amar Hospital, Near Railway Over Bridge, Ferozepur City.

                                                                       …….. Complainant

Versus       

1.   Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala, through its Chairman.

2.   Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Assistant Engineer (Operation), Cantt Sub Division No.1, Ferozepur Cantt. 

                                                                              ........ Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                                                          *        *        *        *        *       

PRESENT :

For the complainant                :         Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate

For the opposite parties           :         Sh. Manjit Singh Sandhu, Advocate

QUORUM

S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President

S. Gyan Singh, Member 

 ORDER

GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-

                   Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is running his hospital in the name of Amar Hospital, Near Railway Over Bridge,

C.C. No. 335 of 2014              \\2//

Ferozepur and had obtained an electric connection having sanctioned load of 99.39 KWs, from Punjab State Electricity Board, now known as Powercom, bearing account No.GC46/43 under Sub Urban Division, Ferozepur and Sub Division Cantt No.1, Ferozepur. Further it has been pleaded that on 28.11.2013, certain officials of the opposite parties inspected the electric meter in question and during inspection, it was alleged that the meter was not displaying any parameters and it was apprehended that there was some inner defect in its circuit. The electric meter was ordered to be removed, sealed properly and be immediately sent to ME Lab at Moga for internal checking. The old meter was replaced with new electric meter within 4-5 days and the complainant is paying electricity bill regularly as per the bill received. The old electric meter, which was ordered to be removed from the premises of the complainant, was sent to ME Lab in May 2014 and no defect was found in the said meter. The Assistant Engineer (Operation) Sub  Division Cantt No.1, Ferozepur, opposite party No.2 had issued a memo No.1182 dated 28.8.2014 to the complainant demanding an amount of Rs.96,350/- from the complainant and directed him to deposit the same within ten days, failing which the said amount shall be charged from him by including the same in the electricity bill. It was mentioned in the said memo that the old electric meter was changed in January 2014, which fact is totally wrong

C.C. No. 335 of 2014              \\3//

and the meter was infact changed in the first week of December 2013. It has been further mentioned in the said memo that the alleged amount of Rs.96,350/- was being claimed from the complainant on the basis of report of Audit party, which re-determined/recalculated the amount by comparison of the electricity bill of September 2013 to December 2013 with the electricity bills of corresponding period of September 2012 to December 2012 and according to audit party, there was variation in consumption of electric units during the said period. In the bills of previous period, there have been variations of electricity units consumed, the details of which is given as under:-

C.C. No. 335 of 2014              \\4//

Further it has been alleged that the report of Internal Auditor on the basis of which the above said amount of Rs.96,350/- imposed on the complainant was never supplied to the complainant nor any show cause notice was ever issued to the complainant. Even during the time of checking of the old electric meter, removed from the premises of the complainant and sent to the M.E. Lab at Moga, it was informed by the officials of the M.E. Lab that there was no defect in the electric meter and the parameters were being correctly displayed and at that time, the said meter was showing the reading of 562756 units, which suggested that the reading of electric units was readable. Further it has been pleaded that the electric meter in question was working properly and the officials concerned on each inspection had been regularly noting the consumption of units of electricity actually consumed during each month, on the basis of which the requisite bill was issued to the complainant and he has been regularly paying the electricity charges for electricity consumed on receipt of bill from the opposite parties. Stating the demand of the opposite parties of Rs.96,350/- to be wrong and illegal and pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to withdraw the claim of Rs.96,350/- being imposed on the complainant on the basis of illegal audit report. Further an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been claimed as compensation for harassment  

C.C. No. 335 of 2014              \\5//

and to Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that the connection of the complainant was checked on 29.11.2013 and it was found that there was defect in the internal circuit of the meter and due to the said reason, the meter run slow and the checking was done in the presence of the consumer. The checking report was prepared by the checking staff. Thereafter, MCO was prepared and the old meter was changed and the audit party after going through the previous consumptions of the consumer, have prepared the bills from 12/13, 11/13, 10/13 and 9/13 and the difference comes out to Rs.96,350/- and the same has been rightly added in the new bill of the consumer and he has been rightly asked to pay the same, as the same is the variation from the average as the earlier meter was running slow due to tampering with the internal circuit of the meter. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed complainant evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.1 & 2 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1 & 2/1 to Ex.OP-1 & 2/6 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2.

C.C. No. 335 of 2014              \\6//

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the file.

5.                The complainant has challenged the demand of the opposite parties of Rs.96,350/- raised vide memo No.1182 dated 26.8.2014 Ex.C-12. As per this memo, electric meter of the connection of the complainant was changed in the month of 1/2014 and the amount of Rs.96,350/- has been charged at the behest of the audit party. A perusal of the report of the Internal Auditor, Sub Urban Division, P.S.P.C.L., Ferozepur Ex.OP-1 & 2/6 reveals that the audit party has overhauled the account of the complainant for the months of 9/2013 to 12/2013 on the basis of the consumption of the corresponding months of the previous year. The opposite parties have pleaded that the connection of the complainant was checked on 29.11.2013 and it was found that there was defect in the internal circuit of the meter, as a result of which the meter was running slow, the old meter was changed and the audit party after going through the previous consumption of the consumer, prepared the bills from 9/2013 to 12/2013 and the amount of Rs.96,350/- is being charged as difference of consumption of electricity. However, a perusal of checking report, copy of which has been placed on the file by the complainant as Ex.C-2 and by the opposite parties as Ex.OP-1 & 2/2, reveals that the checking of the connection of the complainant was conducted by the officials of the

C.C. No. 335 of 2014              \\7//

opposite parties on 28.11.2013 and not on 29.11.2013, as has been pleaded by the opposite parties, and it was pointed out by the officials of the opposite parties that electric meter was not displaying any parameters and it was apprehended that there was some inner defect it its circuit and it was recommended that the meter be changed immediately and the removed meter be packed, sealed and thereafter its seals and internal working be got checked from the M.E. Lab in the presence of the consumer and then to take action as per rules. But the opposite parties have neither pleaded nor produced any evidence that the removed electricity meter of the connection of the complainant was sent to the M.E. Lab for its testing or the complainant was also called upon to be present in the M.E. Lab for testing of the removed electricity meter in his presence. Copy of memo No.2207 dated 25.7.2014 Ex.OP-1 & 2/5 was issued by the opposite parties to one Jagdish Lal son of Lal Chand Monga of Ferozepur City for checking of his electricity meter bearing account No.TH74/409 and not to the complainant in respect of his electricity meter. Even no report of the M.E. Lab has been placed on the file by the opposite parties. Therefore, the old electric meter of the complainant, which was removed for its checking in the M.E. Lab, has never been sent to the M.E. Lab, as was recommended by the checking staff vide checking report dated 28.11.2013 Ex.C-2 nor the same has been proved to be defective, as was apprehended by the checking staff in the

C.C. No. 335 of 2014              \\8//

said report. Therefore, the Internal Auditor of the opposite parties has wrongly overhauled account of the complainant for the period from 9/2013 to 12/2013 on the basis of consumption of corresponding months of the previous year vide report dated 21.4.2014 Ex.OP-1 & 2/6 and has wrongly pointed out an amount of Rs.96,350/- to be chargeable from the complainant as difference of consumption. Consequently the demand of the opposite parties of Rs.96,350/- raised vide memo No.1182 dated 26.8.2014 Ex.C-12 on the basis of report dated 21.4.2014 of the Internal Auditor Ex.OP-1 & 2/6 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. A perusal of copy of bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8 reveals that the complainant had been paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties till 12/2013 i.e. till the replacement of the old meter on the basis of actual consumption being recorded by the meter with ‘O’ status. Therefore, the opposite parties are guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant.                 

6.                In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and the impugned demand of the opposite parties of Rs.96,350/- raised vide memo No.1182 dated 26.8.2014 Ex.C-12 is hereby quashed. The amount deposited by the complainant, if any, against the above said demand of Rs.96,350/- be refunded to the complainant. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation

C.C. No. 335 of 2014              \\9//

expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced                                                

 21.1.2015

                                                                   (Gurpartap Singh Brar)

                                                                     President

                                                                            (Gyan Singh)                                                                                      Member