Order dictated by:
Sh. Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. Tarsem Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that for running his Atta Chakki, complainant had obtained an electric connection bearing account No. A46SP480473K-D. Since the installation of the electric connection, complainant has been paying the bills regularly without committing any default and no amount of any sort is outstanding against the said connection. In the month of July, 2014 the electric meter of the complainant became defective. The complainant immediately informed the opposite party by filing a representation to them. On his representation , the officials of the opposite party visited the spot and inspected his meter and advised the complainant to deposit Rs. 450/- as meter challenge fee which the complainant duly deposited vide receipt No. 264/8296 dated 17.8.2014. Thereafter the meter of the complainant was removed and in its place a new meter was installed . At the time of removal of the meter, they assured that the meter will be checked in ME Lab in his presence. They took the removed meter in open and loose condition without its packing and sealing in cardboard box. But tilld ate the complainant was neither called for to attend the ME Lab nor his meter was checked in the ME Lab in his presence. In the month of September 2014 the opposite party issued a bill dated 17.9.2014 of Rs. 73,420/-. The complainant approached the opposite party for correction of his bill and the same was corrected by the opposite party and the complainant was advised to pay Rs. 2200/- which the complainant duly paid to the opposite party. After that all the current consumption charges raised in the bills were paid by the complainant well in time. However, the complainant was surprised to receive the electricity bill dated 12.8.2016 of Rs. 93,440/- showing 359 units without disclosing any details thereof. The complainant again approached the opposite party to seek clarification on the bill. The complainant was first asked to deposit Rs. 10000/- which was accordingly deposited by the complainant vide receipt No. 51 dated 24.8.2016. Again the complainant was surprised to receive an electricity bill dated 13.9.2016 for Rs. 83,483/- for 724 units. The complainant again approached the officials of the opposite party and requested them to correct his bill. But the opposite party threatened the complainant to pay the bill in full otherwise his connection will be disconnected permanently. The fact remains that no such amount was outstanding against the complainant as all the electricity bills having been paid by him. It is pertinent to mention over here that as per the circular of the board issued vide memo No. 3914/4555/DB-100L dated 12.1.2007 as well as account circular No. 10/2009, the opposite party had no right to add any amount of arrears in the bill except the current consumption charges, but despite this circular, opposite party has illegally added the alleged amount/arrears in the bill . Before issuing the impugned bill, the opposite party had neither issued any show cause notice to the complainant nor the opposite party has afforded any personal hearing to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite party be directed to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs. 89,550/- raised vide bill dated 13.9.2016 or in the alternative the same may kindly be set-aside ;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- alongwith litigation expenses be also awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was admitted that complainant deposited Rs. 450/- as meter challenge fee. Accordingly, MCO was issued to change the electricity meter of the complainant. After that electricity meter of the complainant was brought in ME Lab for checking but the meter was burnt so the same could not be checked. It was denied that the opposite party took the removed meter in open and loose condition. It was submitted that bill dated 17.9.2014 for Rs. 73,420/- has been issued according to actual consumption of the complainant according to rules and regulations of the PSPCL. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh. Saurabh Sharma, Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of electricity bill dated 13.9.2016 Ex.C-2, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-3, copy of bill dated 12.8.2016 Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 17.9.2014 Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh. Anil Sharma,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sukhpreet Singh Pannu, SDO Ex.OP1, copy of ME Lab report Ex.OP2, copy of bill dated 13.9.2016 Ex.OP3 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 reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the opposite party issued bill dated 17.9.2014, copy whereof is Ex.C-5 for the period from 27.8.2014 to 30.7.2014, to the complainant for payment of Rs. 73420/- . On receipt of the impugned bill, complainant approached the opposite party and on the advise of the officials of the opposite party, complainant deposited the challenge fee to the tune of Rs. 450/- to check the correctness of the electric meter in dispute. Thereafter the meter of the complainant was removed and in its place a new meter was installed . The officials of the opposite party took the removed meter in open and loose condition without its packing and sealing in cardboard box. However, the opposite party advised the complainant to pay Rs. 2200/- which the complainant duly paid to the opposite party. After that all the current consumption charges raised in the bills were paid by the complainant well in time. However, the complainant was surprised to receive the electricity bill dated 12.8.2016 of Rs. 93,440/- showing 359 units without disclosing any details thereof. The complainant again approached the opposite party to seek clarification on the bill. The complainant was first asked to deposit Rs. 10000/- which was accordingly deposited by the complainant vide receipt No. 51 dated 24.8.2016. Again the complainant was surprised to receive an electricity bill dated 13.9.2016 for Rs. 83,483/- for 724 units. The complainant again approached the officials of the opposite party and requested them to correct his bill. But the opposite party threatened the complainant to pay the bill in full otherwise his connection will be disconnected permanently. the opposite party has afforded any personal hearing to the complainant.
7. On the other hand ld.counsel for the opposite party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the ld.counsel for the complainant and has admitted that complainant deposited Rs. 450/- as meter challenge fee. Accordingly, MCO was issued to change the electricity meter of the complainant. After that electricity meter of the complainant was brought in ME Lab for checking but the meter was burnt so the same could not be checked. It was denied that the opposite party took the removed meter in open and loose condition. It was submitted that bill dated 17.9.2014 for Rs. 73,420/- has been issued according to actual consumption of the complainant according to rules and regulations of the PSPCL.
8. From the perusal of record, it becomes evident that the complainant was neither called for to attend the ME Lab nor his meter was checked in the ME Lab in his presence as opposite party could not produce any evidence in the shape of any consent letter from the complainant to check the meter in his absence. On the other hand the perusal of ME Lab report shows that meter No. 755806 was checked in ME Lab. however, in the bill dated 17.9.2014 the meter number has been shown as 757606. So the meter i.e. meter No. 757606,which was removed on the request of the complainant by depositing meter challenge fee was not checked in the ME Lab. So how the opposite party came to the conclusion that the meter which was removed from the premises of the complainant i.e. meter No. 757606 was found burnt ,as such the same could not be checked, when some mysterious meter number i.e. meter No. 755806 which was not related to the complainant was checked in the ME Lab though in the absence of the complainant and without the consent obtained from the complainant. It was also written in the ME Lab report that the meter was checked with the consent of the consumer. But, however, no consent letter was produced or proved on record by the opposite party. It has not been made clear by the opposite party as to in whose presence the electric meter of the consumer was checked in the ME Lab. and also as to whether any notice was sent to the complainant before checking the meter in the ME Lab. Hence, in the absence of complainant or his authorized agent the report , if any, of the ME Lab cannot be ipso-facto deemed to be correct. It is the specific case of the complainant that he was never called by the opposite party before checking the meter in the ME Lab. On the other hand the opposite party has failed to produce any document to show that they ever served any notice upon the consumer to be appeared before the ME Lab . In such a situation non service of the notice upon the consumer completely vitiate the findings recorded at the ME Lab., if any, in respect of the electric meter of the complainant. We draw support from 2000(2) Civil Court Cases pagd 377 where it has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition titled as M/s. Tirupati Industries Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. in para No. 11 of the judgement as follows:-
“A bare reading of the above reproduced provisions of the Commercial Circular shows that the testing of meter removed against any meter change order is to be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative. This necessarily means that a notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date, time and place of the testing of meter. Admittedly, that was not done in the petitioner case.Shri Sukhbir Singh argued that the violation of the instructions contained in commercial circular No. 45 should not be made basis for nullifying the decision taken by the Board because these instructions do not have the force of law. We are unable to agree with him because it is a settled proposition of law that the executive authorities of the state and its agencies are bound to act in accordance with the administrative/executive instructions with regulate their actions-Union of India V.K.P.Joseph AIR 1973 S.C. 303, Amritsar Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab , AIR 1975 S.C. 984, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 S.C. 1628.”
9. When the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court , it becomes transparently clear that non service of the notice by the opposite party on the complainant before testing his meter in the ME Lab. has vitiated the entire process and proceedings allegedly conducted by the opposite party.
10. Moreover the meter which was checked in the ME Lab. i.e. meter No. 755806 was not related to the complainant as the meter which was removed on depositing the meter challenge fee by the complainant was having No. 757606. So the demand raised by the opposite party vide bill dated dated 13.9.2016 , on checking of wrong meter , for Rs. 89,550/- for 724 units is liable to be set-aside.
11. Consequently the demand of Rs. 89,550/- raised vide bill dated 13.9.2016 is set-aside. However, the opposite party is at liberty to charge the complainant for the above mentioned period on average basis i.e. on the basis of actual consumption made by the complainant during the corresponding period of previous year and if the actual consumption of the previous corresponding year is not available with the opposite party, then the opposite party can charge the complainant by taking the average consumption of succeeding year. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. 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 : 3.8.2017
