BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.720 of 2013

Date of Institution: 20.10.2013

Date of Decision: 07.06.2016 

Ravinder Handa son of Amar Nath Handa, 67, Lawrence Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala through Executive Engineer, Civil Lines Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,  Hall Gate, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Sanjay Kapoor, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. R.K.Sehgal, 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.Ravinder Handa has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing account No.C16LR420021W at his residence situated at 67, Lawrence Road, Amritsar in his name. The complainant has been using the said connection for domestic purpose and regularly making the payment of all the bills raised by the Opposite Party since the installation of the electricity connection in dispute and as such, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. In the month of August, 2012 the complainant received the bill from Opposite Party on the basis of average bill @ 833 units for two months and on enquiry it was informed to the complainant that due to some defect in the meter, the complainant received the bill on average basis. Further in the next bill also issued in October, 2012 the complainant was again charged on average basis @ 714 units for two months. Thereafter, a new electric meter was installed in the absence of the complainant and/ or his representative and in the month of December, the complainant received a bill of consumption of 420 units. The complainant has made payment of the electricity bills issued by the Opposite Party regularly including the bills on average basis. Recently, in the month of August 2013 the complainant received a bill dated 7.8.2013 from Opposite Party in which a sum of Rs.54,672/- has been charged as some misc.expenses, etc. The complainant was surprised and went to the office of Opposite Party from where he came to know that despite the fact that the complainant was charged with 1547 units i.e. 833 and 714 units above referred on average basis in the bill of August, 2012 and October, 2012, the complainant has been again charged with 9054 units for said period, illegally and arbitrarily without legal and genuine basis and a sum of Rs.54,672/- has been imposed  in the bill of August 2013. This was informed to the complainant orally, but neither any ground nor any document has been supplied to the complainant on the basis of which the complainant was charged 9054 units, despite his demand. The complainant requested the Opposite Party to withdraw the amount of Rs.54,672/- from the bill being as illegal, but the Opposite Party refused to listen to the genuine demand of the complainant and rather threatened the complainant that in case the complainant will not deposit the alleged amount, his electricity connection will be disconnected.  No inspection has been carried out by the Opposite Party before removing the old meter in the presence of the complainant and/ or his representative. Meter was neither sealed at the time of removing nor the checking of the meter has been carried out in the presence of the complainant or his representative in ME Lab or otherwise.  The complainant was not called to the ME Lab nor any notice in this regard has been issued nor ME report was delivered to the complainant. No specific bill has been issued regarding the alleged amount of Rs.54,672/- nor any notice has been given to the complainant before charging/ entering the alleged amount of Rs.54,672/- in the bill in dispute. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint.

a)       To withdraw the demand of Rs.54,672/- raised in the bill dated 7.8.2013 under head miscellaneous expenses and any amount consequential to the alleged amount of Rs.54,672/-. Any amount out of the said impugned demand paid during the pendancy of the present complaint be allowed to be  refunded with interest @12% from the date of payment till realization.  

b)      to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant.

c)       Costs of the proceedings to the tune of rs.10,000/- and any other relief to which the complainant may found entitled may also be granted in favour of the complainant and against the Opposite Party. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the bill in dispute was issued on the actual consumption which the complainant is legally bound to pay; that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the complaint against the answering Opposite Party, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that complainant is a consumer of electricity connection bearing No.LR42/0021 under DS category having a sanctioned load of 12 KW running in the name of the complainant. In the month of 8/2012, three phase meter of the complainant got defective on the reading of 30520, so the bill in the month of 8/2012, was issued on average basis on 833 units. Similarly, the next bill in the month of 10/2012 was issued on the average basis of 714 units. The defective meter of the complainant was removed and new meter was installed on 20.11.2012 on the initial reading of 1.3 KWH as the meter was changed vide MCO No. C23/M/12/04462 dated 3.10.2012 and then reading recorded on new meter as 50 units only on 4.12.2012 and the bill was issued for 420 units. It is admitted that the complainant has made payment of  all the electricity bills. The meter of the complainant was checked in ME Lab by one Senior Executive Engineer Enforcement II Amritsar and SDO of ME Lab and during the course of checking of the meter, the reading on the meter was ascertained as 039574 and after adjusting the already charged units  on average basis, the detail of the units to be charged as under:-

a)       Final reading as per ME Lab, report          =39574

ii)      Amount charged as per  reading                 =30520

Balance                                                       = 9054

          Average adjusted already charged

          For D.Code                                                 =833+714=1547

          Balance                                                       =9054-1547=7507

Thereafter, a demand of Rs.54,672/- was raised by the Opposite Party vide memo No. 1621 dated 30.5.2013 on 7507 units which the complainant did not deposit. 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  his  duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of three years consumption Ex.C3, detail Ex.C4, detail of previous year consumption Ex.C5, original bills Ex.C6 to Ex.C12 and  closed his evidence.

4.       To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Sawinder Singh, SDO Ex.OP1, notice dated 30.5.2013 Ex.OP2, MCO Ex.OP3, consumption data Ex.OP4, ME Lab report Ex.OP5, report of XEN Enforcement Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence.

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

6.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that that Opposite Party has not complied with the rules as well as regulation of PSPCL while raising the demand of Rs.  54,672/- raised in the bill dated 7.8.2013 which is Ex.C12 on record. It is the case  of the Opposite Party that the electric meter of the complainant was defective, therefore the bills for 8/2012 and 10/2012 were issued on average basis. Vide impugned bill dated 7.8.2013 Ex.C12, a demand for Rs.54,672/- was  raised after the removal of the electric meter in dispute and getting it checked from the ME Lab. But however, no prior notice  in writing was given to the complainant before removing and replacing the electric meter in dispute or getting the old removed meter in dispute tested in ME Lab. It is admitted case that no representative of the complainant was either present at the time of removal of the meter or at the time, when it was tested in ME Lab, which was incumbent upon the Opposite Party before getting the meter removed on account of its being defective as well as at the time when it was tested  in ME Lab.  But however, the Opposite Party could not charge this amount from the complainant in the electricity consumption bill without issuing separate detailed notice as per regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party. It has been held by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case PSEB Vs. Hardeep Singh  2010(2) CLT 259 that where the payment of Rs.27501/- was not raised by the appellant through a separate detailed notice as required by Regulation 124.1 and added in the bill in dispute as sundry charges, there is violation  of the regulation of the Opposite Party. However, the appellant is at liberty to raise fresh demand of the amount in dispute and can charge the same from the complainant by following proper procedure. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case Ishar Singli Vs. PSEB 2011 (2) CLT page 420. Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in Uttri Haryana Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd Vs. Shiv Kumar, 2009 (4) CLT 191 (NC) wherein it has been held that in the absence of test report from the laboratory showing that  seals have been tampered with and also in view of the fact that inspection was carried out in the absence of the complainant, or, independent person, it  cannot be held that the complainant was guilty of theft of electricity.   Union Territory Consumer Commission, Chandigarh in  Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot Vs. Sarwan Singh, 2008 (1) CLT 237 has held that the checking report in its present shape is against the rules and regulations of OP department, as such, it can not be relied upon. Since the Opposite Party has failed to comply with the aforesaid provisions as well as natural principle governing the conduct and the proceedings of the Opposite Party, therefore, the impugned demand raised vide bill dated 7.8.2013 for Rs.54,652/- stands quashed. However the Opposite Party  is at liberty to raise demand  afresh from the complainant by following proper procedure. With these observations, the complaint stands allowed.  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: 07.06.2016.                                                         (S.S.Panesar)                                                                                                                                                                                                             President

                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

Member                         Member

hrg