BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 683 of 2017
Date of Institution: 25.9.2017
Date of Decision:24.9.2019
Mr. Kawaljit Singh S/o Sh.Wazir Singh R/o 39-C, Mall Road, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala service through AEE Civil Lines Sub Division, Amritsar
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sh.Munish Menon,Advocate
Coram
Ms.Rachna Arora, Presiding Member
Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member
Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Presiding Member
1. Kawaljit Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant is having electric connection for his shop of readymade garments which he is running exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self employment vide account No. 3002904373 in the name of his deceased wife and the complainant has been using the said connection being the beneficiary of the said connection. The complainant is making payment of all the bills raised on him from time to time . Now the complainant received memo No. 1544 dated 31.8.2017 raising a demand of Rs. 19,744/- on the plea that one phase of the electric connection of the complainant is not working properly on the basis of alleged spot report dated 21.8.2017. It is pertinent to mention here that said electric meter was never checked in the ME Lab and further pertinent to mention here that the last reading taken by the opposite party was on 14.8.2017 and it is vehemently recorded as OK meaning thereby that it is correct and now the opposite party allegedly rectified the account of the complainant for preceding six months and raised the impugned amount of Rs. 19744/-. The complainant time and again visited the opposite party to recall the impugned amount, but to no avail. The complainant under the threat of disconnection deposited the impugned amount under protest with the opposite party on 12.9.2019. The aforesaid act of the opposite party in demanding the illegal amount from the complainant without ascertaining the correct facts is an act of deficiency in service, malpractice, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite party be directed to refund the impugned amount of Rs. 19744/- alongwith interest from the date of payment till realization ;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith adequate litigation expenses may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that since the electric connection in question is under “NRS” category and the same is being used for commercial purpose, as such the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It was submitted that meter installed against electric connection bearing account No. 3002904373 was checked by Addl.Superintending Engineer, Mobile Meter Testing Squad on 21.8.2017 and during the course of said inspection it was detected that the meter in question was not recording consumption on “Yellow Phase” as the current of the “Yellow Phase” was 0.00 Amp. However, when the cable of the Yellow phase was checked with clip on meter, the same recorded the current of 7.20 Amp. The meter in question was put in Dial Test with the help of ERS meter the meter in question was found to be recording 0.643 unit as against the consumption of 1 unit . As such the meter was recording less electricity by 35.70%. Data was downloaded from the said meter. When the wires of “Red phase” and “Yellow phase” were interchanged, it was found that the current on “Red Phase” was 0.00 Amp and on “Yellow phase” was 6.98 Amp. The said defect was due to malfunctioning of the CT unit of the meter As such CT unit was recommended to be changed. Accordingly, CT unit was replaced by the opposite party on 2.10.2017 . As per rules and regulations, the accounts of the said electric connection was overhauled by enhancing the consumption by 35.70% for the period of six months from the date of replacement i.e. bills of electricity consumption issued from 31.3.2017 to 14.8.2017 and accordingly notice bearing Memo No. 1544 dated 31.8.2017 was issued raising a demand of Rs. 19744/-. The said amount has been claimed by the opposite party as per rules and regulations, and there is no deficiency in service. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of memo Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 18.8.2017 Ex.C-3, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Munish Menon,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Aman Kumar Ex.OP1/1, copy of report dated 21.8.2017 Ex.OP1/2, copy of job order dated 28.8.2017 Ex.OP1/3, copy of notice No. 1544 dated 31.8.2017 Ex.OP1/4, copy of account statement Ex.OP1/5, copy of detail Ex.OP1/6, copy of consumption data Ex.OP1/8, copy of bill dated 23.10.2017 Ex.OP1/8, copy of bill dated 20.11.2017 Ex.OP1/9, copy of detail payment Ex.OP1/10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that complainant is using the electric connection bearing account No. 3002904373 which was installed in the name of his deceased wife for his shop of readymade garments which he is running exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of self employment and the complainant has been using the said connection being the beneficiary of the said connection. It was the case of the complainant that he has been making payment of all the bills raised on him from time to time . Now the complainant received memo No. 1544 dated 31.8.2017 raising a demand of Rs. 19,744/- on the plea that one phase of the electric connection of the complainant is not working properly on the basis of alleged spot report dated 21.8.2017. Ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that before raising the said demand the electric meter of the complainant was never checked in the ME Lab. In this regard Ld.counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon Asst.Er.Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Others Vs. M/s. Habeebia Stones 2019(2) CLT 33. However, the complainant under the threat of disconnection deposited the impugned amount under protest with the opposite party on 12.9.2019. Ld.counsel for the complainant contended that the aforesaid act of the opposite party in demanding the illegal amount from the complainant without ascertaining the correct facts is an act of deficiency in service, malpractice, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant
7. On the other hand Ld.counsel for the opposite party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the Ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that since the electric connection in question is under “NRS” category and the same is being used for commercial purpose, as such the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It was submitted that meter installed against electric connection bearing account No. 3002904373 was checked by Addl.Superintending Engineer, Mobile Meter Testing Squad on 21.8.2017 and during the course of said inspection it was detected that the meter in question was not recording consumption on “Yellow Phase” as the current of the “Yellow Phase” was 0.00 Amp. However, when the cable of the Yellow phase was checked with clip on meter, the same recorded the current of 7.20 Amp. The meter in question was put in Dial Test with the help of ERS meter the meter in question was found to be recording 0.643 unit as against the consumption of 1 unit . As such the meter was recording less electricity by 35.70%. Data was downloaded from the said meter. When the wires of “Red phase” and “Yellow phase” were interchanged, it was found that the current on “Red Phase” was 0.00 Amp and on “Yellow phase” was 6.98 Amp. The said defect was due to malfunctioning of the CT unit of the meter As such CT unit was recommended to be changed. Accordingly, CT unit was replaced by the opposite party on 2.10.2017 . As such , the accounts of the said electric connection was overhauled by enhancing the consumption by 35.70% for the period of six months from the date of replacement i.e. bills of electricity consumption issued from 31.3.2017 to 14.8.2017 and accordingly notice bearing Memo No. 1544 dated 31.8.2017 was issued raising a demand of Rs,. 19744/-. The said amount has been claimed by the opposite party as per rules and regulations, and there is no deficiency in service.
8. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it stands proved on record that the opposite party raised a demand of Rs. 19,744/- vide Memo No. 1544 dated 31.8.2017 on the basis of spot inspection report dated 21.8.2017 which was carried out by Addl. Superintending Engineer and on the said report the consumer/complainant has also affixed his signatures . During checking it was found that the meter in question was recording consumption of electricity less by 35.70% and as the defect was due to malfunctioning of the CT unit of the meter, as such CT unit was changed on 2.10.2017 and the accounts of the said electricity connection was overhauled by enhancing the consumption by 35.70% for the period of six months from the date of replacement of CT unit and memo for the period of six months i.e. 31.3.2017 to 14.8.2017 raising a demand of Rs. 19,744/- was issued to the complainant . The plea of the opposite party is that the complainant was issued memo as per rules and regulations of the opposite party more particularly on the basis of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual under column 59.3 which is as under:-
“Whenever a meter is found to be inaccurate by Sr. XEN/Addl.SE (Enforcement) the matter should be brought to the notice of AE/AEE/XEN(DS) and Sr.XEN/Addl.SE (MMTS) (particularly in respect of large supply consumers) in writing. On receipt of the report, the Sr. XEN/Addl.SE (MMTS) shall check the accuracy of that meter at site in the presence of the consumer after which immediate steps shall be taken by AE/AEE/XEN(DS) to replace the inaccurate meter and also to take other action as required pursuant to the checking.
If the meter installed at the premises of a MS consumer is found/suspected to be defective or inoperative, it shall be got checked /tested from Sr.XEN/ASE (Enforcement/DS) with the help of ERS meter at site, Sr.XEN (DS) shall also carry out checking in respect of tampering of seals and genuineness of ME/MTC (Meter Terminal Cover) or CT Chamber seals.
As such after replacing the CT unit the accounts of the elecrtric connection was overhauled as per Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 under column 21.5 Overhauling of consumer Accounts and under column 21.5.1 Inaccurate Meters
“If a consumer meter on testing is found to be beyond the limits of accuracy as prescribed hereunder, the account of the consumer shall be overhauled and the electricity charges for all categories of consumers shall be computed in accordance with the said test results for a period not exceeding six months immediately preceding the date of test in case the meter has been tested at site to the satisfaction of the consumer or replacement of inaccurate meter whichever is later
9. So in view of the above discussion, it stands proved on record that the opposite party while raising the demand of Rs. 19,744/- has followed the abovesaid rules and regulations of the opposite party and there is no deficiency in service.
10. Consequently, we find no merit and substance in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum