DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 214 of 12-06-2015

Decided on : 11-05-2017

Sahib Singh S/o Late Sh. Raghbir Singh, R/o Village Sivian, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Managing Director/Chairman

2. S.D.O./A.E.E. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Goniana, District Bathinda.

   …...Opposite parties

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

Quorum :

Sh. M.P.Singh. Pahwa, President

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate.

For the opposite parties : Sh. Sushil Bansal, Advocate.

O R D E R

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

1. Sahib Singh, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties').

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is permanent resident of Village Sivian, Tehsil & District Bathinda. An electric connection bearing A/c No. B16SN560665K is installed in his house in the name of his father S. Raghbir Singh. His father has already expired on 20-01-2001. After his death, connection is being used by the complainant. He has been making payment of bills regularly without any default upto 31-8-2015. The average consumption of the complainant in winter season remained upto Rs. 1000/- and during summer season, it remained upto Rs. 2000/- bi- monthly. The complainant has been using the connection within sanctioned load of 3.72 KW.

3. It is pleaded that complainant received bill dated 26-6-2014 for a sum of Rs. 19,870/- from PSPCL which was highly exaggerated and exorbitant. After receiving bill, the complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 and inquired about the same. He requested that there is some mistake in preparing the bill as he never consumed units as alleged in the said bill. On this, the officials of opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant to check the account. The complainant was asked to deposit the amount in order to avoid disconnection of the electricity supply and after checking, the amount shall be refunded to him or it will be adjusted in his future bills. Bonafidely believing the officials of PSPCL, the complainant deposited the said amount of Rs. 19870/- with the opposite parties on 7-7-2014. Thereafter the officials of the opposite parties did not check his electricity connection and issued another bill dated 31-8-2014 for the period from 26-6-2014 to 31-8-2014 for a sum of Rs. 33,880/-. It was also highly excessive and exaggerated. The complainant again visited the office of S.D.O. Goniana but the officials of opposite party No. 2 did not pay any heed to his request. The complainant requested for checking of the meter installed in his presence and deposited requisite fee of Rs. 120/- on 9-9-2014, but the officials of the opposite parties did not check the meter for a considerable time of more than two months. They issued another bill dated 1-11-2014 for total sum of Rs. 37,850/- by adding aforesaid previous balance of Rs. 33,380/- and surcharge etc., in an illegal manner.

4. It is further pleaded that in the end of November, 2014, the officials of the opposite parties changed the meter with new one in the absence of complainant and without obtaining his signatures and took the old meter with them without packing it in cardboard box and without affixing any seal under his signatures as per rules of the opposite parties. The said old meter is in possession of the opposite parties in open condition. After installation of new meter, the complainant is receiving bills as per his actual consumption upto Rs. 2000/- bi- monthly but the officials of opposite party No. 2 continued adding the amount of Rs. 33,880/- with surcharge and making demand of Rs. 41,250/- from complainant vide last bill dated 29-4-2015 which was payable upto 12-5-2015. The complainant has been repeatedly requesting the officials of the opposite parties to overhaul his account with effect from 1-5-2015 and refund the amount already deposited in excess on 7-7-2014 and to waive alleged demand of Rs. 33,830/- raised through bill dated 31-8-2014 and subsequent bills including last bill dated 29-4-2015.

5. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has pleaded that due to inaction of the opposite parties, he is suffering from great mental tension, agony botheration etc., He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for this harassment. He has also claimed cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 11,000/- in addition to directions to the opposite parties to withdraw demand raised by them through different bills as detailed in earlier part of complaint. Hence this complaint.

6. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing joint written reply. In written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections regarding maintainability, cause of action and locus standi. It is further pleaded that complainant is not consumer as the connection in question is in the name of Raghbir Singh S/o Puran Singh. The complainant has no right to file the complaint. That this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. That the complainant has not come with clean hands rather has concealed true and material facts from this Forum.

7. As per opposite parties, true facts are that the opposite parties are sending regular bills to complainant as per consumption used by him. The meter status of the complainant is okay on bill dated 8/14 which was issued to complainant for an amount of Rs. 33,880/- for 4657 units. On receiving the said bill, complainant challenged the meter vide application dated 9-9-2014 and deposited Rs. 120/- as meter challenge fee vide receipt No. 051/93675 dated 9-9-2014. He did not deposit the affidavit/undertaking as required by opposite parties in meter challenge case. Thereafter meter challenge process of complainant was kept under wait in the office of opposite parties on account of non deposit of affidavit/undertaking as required. Then in between, meter of the complainant found burnt. Bill for the month of 11/14 was issued to complainant for an amount of Rs. 37,860/- with 'R' code i.e. Meter Burnt. As per rules of PSPCL, burnt meter of complainant was changed vide MCO 141/50335 dated 18-11-2014. After removal of old burnt meter, it was sent to ME lab vide challan No. 106 dated 5-1-2015 for checking. In ME lab, meter of complainant was found okay. As such, all the bills issued by the opposite parties earlier to change of meter in question and after change of meter were as per consumption. These have been sent as per rules and regulations of PSPCL. The complainant is liable to pay the same and PSPCL have right to demand the same from the complainant.

8. Further legal objections are that all the bills sent to complainant were as per consumption used by him and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. It be dismissed with special cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

9. On merits, it is admitted that as per record Sh. Raghbir Singh is consumer. It is also admitted that opposite parties issued bill dated 26-6-2014 for a sum of Rs. 19,870/- and then bill dated 31-8-2014 for the period from 26-6-2014 to 31-8-2014 for a sum of Rs. 33,830/-. All other averments of the complainant are denied. The opposite parties reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections as detailed above. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 11-6-2015 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-2), photocopy of bill (Ex. C-3), bill (Ex. C-4), photocopy of bills (Ex. C-5), photocopy of death certificate (Ex. C-6) and photocopy of ration card (Ex. C-7).

11. In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit dated 19-1-2016 of Er. Jagjit Singh (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of work order (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of consumption data (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of report (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of application (Ex. OP-1/5) and photocopy of store challan (Ex. OP-1/6).

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

13. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that it is not disputed that electricity connection in question was originally in the name of Raghbir Singh. He was father of complainant. Now complainant is using connection and making payment of bills. Therefore, the complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. The averment of the complainant is that the opposite party has issued bill dated 26-6-2014 for a sum of Rs. 19,870/- and then another bill for Rs. 33,880/-. The opposite parties have themselves produced consumption data regarding supply of electricity to the complainant as Ex. OP-1/3. It is from May, 2013 onwards. This data shows consumption of electricity was from 46 units to maximum 439 units for a period of 2 to 3 months as the reading was taken bi-monthly and sometimes after about three months. The opposite parties have claimed electricity charges amounting to Rs. 19,870/- vide bill dated 26-6-2014 and then Rs. 33,880/- vide bill dated 31-8-2014. This claim is highly excessive. After receipt of these bills, the complainant moved application for checking of meter and deposited requisite fee. As per rules and regulations, the opposite parties were to take action within 15 days from application but the opposite parties have not taken any action on this request of the complainant. Of course the opposite parties have pleaded that complainant has not furnished affidavit/undertaking but there is nothing to show that complainant was ever asked to submit affidavit/undertaking. The opposite parties have already accepted fee for meter checking. In these circumstances, it is to be inferred that requirement of affidavit/undertaking was dispense with, otherwise opposite parties were not expected to get the fee deposited.

14. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that opposite parties have pleaded that meter of the complainant was found burnt. In that situation, the opposite parties were required to pack and seal the meter in the presence of complainant and only then to send the same for testing. The complainant was also required to be afforded opportunity to remain present at the time of testing of meter in the lab but no intimation was given to complainant. The meter was not sealed and packed. The opposite parties were required to get the meter sealed and packed, more so, when the request for re-checking was already pending. In these circumstances, only conclusion that can be drawn is that the readings from May, 2014 upto August, 2014 are not correct. The complainant is not liable to pay the amounts in dispute. The complaint be accepted and prayed relief be given to the complainant.

15. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has reiterated his stand as taken in the written reply. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite parties that as per meter checking report, meter was found okay. Of course the complainant deposited fee for checking of the meter but he failed to submit affidavit/undertaking. As such, no action could be taken on this request of the complainant. Subsequently meter was found burnt. It was got checked from ME Lab and it was found okay.

16. Para 57 of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual details the procedure to be followed for damaged or burnt meter and as per para 54.7 only such meter are required to be packed in cardboard box where theft of energy is suspected. In this case, the meter was found burnt. There was no suspicion of theft. Therefore, there was no requirement for packing the meter in cardboard box and then sealing the same. ME Lab found that meter was okay. Therefore, the complainant was charged only actual consumption consumed by him. No deficiency proved or made out. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

17. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.

18. Firstly it is to be seen whether the complaint is consumer or not. Admittedly, the meter was installed in the name of Raghbir Singh, father of complainant. Raghbir Singh has expired. His death certificate Ex. C-6 also proves this fact. The complainant is consuming electricity through the meter in the name of Raghbir Singh. He is making payment of bills. Therefore, complainant falls within the definition of consumer of the opposite parties.

19. The averments of the complainant are that his average bill was from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2000/- bi monthly. The opposite parties have produced consumption data from May, 2013 onwards. It also proves that normally the consumption of the complainant was between 46 units to 439 units and the reading was taken sometimes bi- monthly and sometimes after two months. It is also admitted that vide bill dated 26-6-2014, complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 19,870/- as consumption charges and vide bill dated 31-8-2014, he was asked to deposit Rs. 33,830/- for consumption from 26-6-2014 to 31-8-2014 which is certainly abnormal than previous consumption and subsequent consumption.

20. It is admitted that complainant deposited fee on 9-9-2014 vide receipt (Ex. C-2) for checking of meter. As per Regulation 21.3.6 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations 2014, testing was to be done within 7 days from payment of fee. Admittedly, the opposite parties have not taken any action. The plea of the opposite parties is that complainant failed to submit affidavit/undertaking but there is nothing to show that complainant was required to submit affidavit/under taking. There is nothing to show that opposite parties have ever asked the complainant to submit affidavit/undertaking. Moreover, the opposite parties have accepted fee for checking of the meter. In these circumstances, it is to be inferred that requirement of affidavit/undertaking, if any, was dispense with.

21. It is further the case of the opposite parties that in between the meter was burnt. It was removed and got checked from ME Lab. The opposite parties have not followed the required procedure. When the complainant has already deposited fee for checking of the meter, the meter was required to be packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant and it was also required to be checked after notice to the complainant.

22. Keeping in view earlier and subsequent consumption of electricity after checking of meter, it is apparent that consumption of electricity during disputed period i.e. 1-5-2014 upto 31-8-2014 is shown abnormal.

23. Now it is to be seen how actual consumption can be calculated. Regulation 21.5 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations 2014, relates to 'Overhauling of Consumer Accounts'. Therefore, in this case, the consumer account is required to be overhauled as per this regulation.

24. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite parties are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant w.e.f 1-5-2014 to 31-8-2014 as per aforesaid Regulation 21.5 and issue fresh bill for the said period. The opposite parties are directed to adjust the amount, if any found paid by complainant in excess, against his subsequent/future bills.

25. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

26. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

27. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced :

    11-05-2017

    (M.P.Singh Pahwa )

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh )

    Member