BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 688 of 2015

Date of Institution: 01.12.2015

Date of Decision: 02.08.2016  

Ravi Kumar Mahajan son of Sh.Braham Dutt Mahajan, 31-B, Rani Ka Bagh, Amrtisar.

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its S.E(City Circle), Municipal Power House, O/S Hall Gate, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.Manohar Singh, Advocate

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Ravi Kumar Mahajan has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the  complainant is consumer of domestic electric connection vide account No.C16CL080481X with sanctioned load of 4.00 KW, working in her residence wherein the electricity bill never exceeded more than 387 units for bi-monthly billing cycle and that too, maximum came in the bill dated 17.7.2013. All electricity bills raised by Opposite Party against said electric connection from time to time stands paid and nothing is due against the said electric connection except the impugned bill. In the month of August, 2015 the electricity meter of the complainant became erratic. Thus the meter was challenged after deposit of Rs.120/- with Opposite Parties  vide receipt dated 28.8.2015. Accordingly the JE concerned visited the spot and gave finding vide report dated 28.8.2015 that the reading on display was not constant and was coming differently instantaneously. Accordingly, he recommended the meter to be checked in ME Lab. In the meantime, the electricity bill dated August/ September, 2015 was served making demand of Rs.50,464/-. On approaching the Opposite Party with meter challenge report, the complainant was allowed to deposit Rs.890/- on 2.9.2015 and the balance was kept under dispute. The electricity meter was changed with new one.  Now vide bill dated 26.11.2015, Opposite Party served bill for Rs.58,018/- showing current consumption of 797 units and Rs.52,540/- as arrear of disputed amount of  August, 2015 without getting the complainant associated in the meter checking process, or without any report of ME Lab of the meter  in dispute, if any. On approaching the Opposite Party, the complainant was informed that there was nothing wrong in the meter and the complainant is liable to make payment of the impugned demand. Said act of Opposite Party of charging excess amounts of electricity bill as per disputed meter for the amount shown as arrear in the bill dated 26.11.2015 for 6804 units over and above the actual consumption,  is gross  deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Moreover, there was no reason or special occasion at the premises of the complainant which could have resulted into consumption of electricity to the extent billed for in August, 2015. The complainant has sought the following reliefs  vide instant complaint:-

a)       Opposite Party be directed to withdraw the electricity charges of Rs.52,540/- shown as arrears in electricity bill dated 26.11.2015 for the bill of August/ September, 2015 and charge the same on average basis of the said period of that bill and refund the excess amount charged alongwith  meter rent, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

b)      Compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment as well as mental agony and threat of illegal disconnection of electricity connection.

c)       Pay costs of complaint to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.    

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that complaint is  not legally maintainable; that no cause of action has arisen to file the present complaint; that the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and full of wrong facts and liable to be dismissed; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is stated that there is electricity connection of Ravi Kumar bearing account No.CL08/0481 having sanctioned load 4 KW under DS tariff. The bill dated 19.8.2015 was issued to the complainant for 6804 units bearing old reading 1931 and new reading 8735 units for Rs.52560/- payable by due date. The bill was issued as per the consumption recorded by the electricity meter. The complainant challenged the energy meter and deposited Rs.120/- dated 28.8.2015. On the letter of the complainant, the connection was checked by Er.Gurinder Singh, JE Civil Lines Sub Division (Tech.) vide checking register No. 9/377 on 28.8.2015. The checking  was made in the presence of complainant. MCO No.100001190590 dated 28.8.2015 was issued and the meter was replaced on 15.9.2015 in the presence of complainant who appended his signatures on the MCO. The replaced meter was sent to ME lab vide challan No. 61 dated 5.10.2015. The complainant also appended his signatures on the challan No.61 dated 5.10.2015. the replaced meter was checked in ME lab Verka. The particulars of the replaced meter are Meter No. 84720, Make Flash, Cap 10-60 Amp and Reading was 009192. the meter was checked in the presence of the complainant who admitted  it to be correct and  appended his signatures on the ME lab report page no. 48 Book No.1 dated 5.10.2015. The meter was checked in the ME lab by Er.Satnam Singh, Addl.SE Enforcement Wing No.2, Amritsar and SDO ME Lab Verka, Er.Jarnail Singh. The result of the checking in the ME lab  is as under:-

“The accuracy test of the removed meter is within permissible limits and dial test of meter is OK and Creap test is also OK.”

The consumption data from 7/2013 to 11/2015 can be perused. Sanctioned load is 4 KW. The complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and full of wrong facts. The area of the complainant where he resides falls in a posh locality, Rani Ka Bagh, Amritsar.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of payment receipt Ex.C2, copy of inspection report dated 28.8.2015 Ex.C3, copies of bills alongwith receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Er.Kuldeep Sharma SDO Commercial Ex.OP1, copy of checking register Ex.OP2, copy of job order Ex.OP3, copy of report of ME Sub Division Verka Ex.OP4, copy of challan Ex.OP5, copy of bill Ex.OP6, copy of consumption data Ex.OP7A, affidavit of Jarnail Singh SDO Ex.OP7, consumption data Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence.  

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       On the basis of evidence on record, ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the complainant was issued bill for the month August/ September, 2015 making the demand of Rs.50,464/-, copy of impugned bill accounts for Ex.C4. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and requested that the meter of the complainant was required to be checked. Thus the meter was challenged after deposit of Rs.120/- vide  receipt dated 28.8.2015, copy whereof Ex.C2. Accordingly JE concerned visited the spot and gave finding vide report dated 28.8.2015 and recommended that the meter be checked in ME Lab. The complainant was allowed to deposit Rs.890/- on 2.9.2015 and the balance was kept pending. The meter was changed with new one. Thereafter, again the bill dated 26.11.2015 was issued by the Opposite Party for an amount of Rs.58018/- showing current consumption of 797 units and Rs.52,540/- as of arrears of disputed amount of August, 2015 without getting the complainant associated in the meter checking process or without any report of ME lab of the electricity meter in dispute. On approaching the Opposite Party, the complainant was informed that there was nothing wrong in the meter  and the complainant is liable to make the payment of the impugned demand. The Opposite Party has not followed the  procedure established under law because the complainant was required to be joined at the time of meter checking before ME Lab which was not done in the present case and the complainant has been forced to make the excess payment without any reasonable cause. It is contended that the impugned demand raised vide bill in dispute may be quashed and the Opposite Party may be restrained  from disconnecting the electric connection of the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for grant of compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party suitably, besides awarding him expenses for litigation.

7.       But however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that on receipt of the application for challenging the meter, the  meter in dispute was removed by the officials of the Opposite Party in the presence of the complainant and the copy of the register accounts for Ex.OP2 wherein the signatures of the complainant have been appended. Further the meter in dispute was sent to ME Lab and the same was checked in accordance with law in the presence of the complainant. The complainant has also signed the register  concerned regarding the meter checking, copy of the meter checking register containing the  signatures of the complainant dated 5.10.2015 Ex.OP4 bears witness to the  said fact. The complainant has taken a false plea in his complaint that he was not associated when the meter was removed or installed, rather he signed all those proceedings. The complainant was present during  checking of the meter in ME Lab. The report of ME Lab Ex.OP4, reads as under:-

“The accuracy test of the removed meter is within permissible limits and dial test of meter is OK and Creap test is also OK.”

A perusal of ME lab report shows that there was no defect in the meter and the same was recording the reading correctly. Simply because on earlier occasions, the complainant received the bills for small amount and only that during the period September and November, 2015 the complainant received the electricity bills for bigger amount (s), is no ground  to dispute the correctness of the reading recorded by the electric meter. The Opposite Party is charging the electricity bills as per the consumption recorded in the electricity meter concerned and no fault can be found with the Opposite Party in issuing the impugned bill in dispute. There is no force in the complaint and the complaint appears to be filed without any reasonable ground and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the instant complaint is ordered to be dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 02.08.2016.                                                        (S.S.Panesar)                                                                                           President

                                           (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member

hrg