DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 229 of 6.6.2016

                                      Decided on:                    2.11.2017

Bachhitar Singh son of Late Sh.Gurdial Singh, resident of village Mehargarh Batti, Post Office Bhankhar, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,(Powercom), Head Office: The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2.       S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,(Powercom),Sub Division, Sub Urban Sanaur, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                                       

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.D.S.Behgal,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate,counsel for OPs.                          

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Bachhitar Singh, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.       That the complainant has been using the electricity connection bearing a/c No.P25BF1201171 from the last 30 years  being the beneficiary  of the same . The said connection was installed at his premises in the name of his father late Sh.Gurdial Singh . All the energy bills have been paid by him regularly. He was surprised to receive the bill dated 1.5.2016 amounting to Rs.85,058/- showing the consumption of 10855 units for the period from 22.2.2016 to 1.5.2016. In the said bill Rs.83,640/- has been mentioned as unexplained sundry charges. After receipt of the said bill, he approached and requested the OPs to rectify the bill but every time the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other.Finding no alternative, he challenged the meter in the M.E.Lab. Thereafter, the officials of the OPs visited his premises and removed the meter. The same was checked in the M.E.Lab in his absence as no intimation was given to him about the checking of the meter.He also filed an objection before SE (Operation),PSPCL Circle, Patiala on 25.5.2016 but till the filing of this complaint, no reply was received. It is stated that earlier also he had filed the complaint before this Forum against the bill dated 21.6.2012 for an amount of Rs.8775/- which was decided against the OPs vide order dated 25.1.2013 and the OPs have intentionally issued the bill in question, which is illegal, null and void and is liable to be withdrawn. The act and conduct of the OPs caused mental agony and physical harassment to him. Hence this complaint with the prayer for a direction to the OPs to rectify the electricity bill dated 1.5.2016; to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation on account of inconvenience, mental agony and physical harassment caused to him and also to grant any other relief if this Forum deem fit.

3.       On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean  hands. On merits, it is admitted that electricity connection bearing account No.P25B|F120117L has been installed at the address mentioned in the complaint. It is also admitted that the complainant received a bill dated 1.5.2016.It is stated that the said bill was of Rs.83,640/- and Rs.85,058/- was for late charges, in case the complainant failed to deposit the same in time.In the said bill consumption of units was shown as 10855 for the period from 22.2.2016 to 1.5.2016.The complainant challenged the working of the said meter . The same was removed and packed in the card board box by the OPs on 3.5.2016 and a new meter was installed. Thereafter a notice No.802 dated 3.5.2016 was issued to the complainant to remain present in the M.E.Lab on 4.5.2016 at the time of checking of the meter. But the complainant did not come and the meter was checked in his absence. The old meter was checked in the M.E.Lab vide challan No.45 and the accuracy of the meter bearing No.396758 was found OK and the bill in question was sent for actual consumption consumed by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denouncing all other averments made  in the complaint, it was prayed that the same may be dismissed.

4.       On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C8 and closed the evidence.

          The ld.counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Ram Singh, alongwith documentsExs.OP1 to OP4 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.       The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the electricity connection bearing a/c No.P25BF1201171 was installed in the name of  the father of the complainant late  Sh.Gurdial Singh and he has been using the said connection being beneficiary, for the last 30 years .The Ops ,vide bill dated 1.5.2016,Ex.C3, raised a demand of Rs.83,640/- for consumption of 10885 units for the period from 22.2.2016 to 1.5.2016. He requested the Ops to rectify the said bill but when nothing was done by the Ops, he challenged the meter in the M.E.Lab. The  checking of the said meter was done by the M.E.Lab in his absence in violation of their rules and regulations. Thus, he is not liable to pay the said amount. The ld.counsel for the Ops has submitted that  since the complainant consumed 10855 units of electricity for the period from 22.2.2016 to 1.5.2016, as such, the bill dated 1.5.2016 for a sum of Rs.83640/- was rightly issued to the complainant . The complainant challenged the meter in question. The disputed meter was checked, in the M.E.Lab on 4.5.2016, in the presence of the complainant. The said meter was found OK as is evident from challan no.45 dated 4.5.2016, Ex.OP4.Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

7.             In para no.4 of the written version, on merits, it is categorically stated by the Ops that they have served the notice No.802 dated 3.5.2016 upon the complainant to remain present in the M.E.Lab on 4.5.2016, for the purpose of checking of the meter in question. However, the perusal of the said letter,Ex.OP3, reveals that it does not bear the signature of the complainant. Had the Ops served the said notice upon the complainant, then they must have obtained the signatures of the complainant on the same. Even no other document has been placed on record by the Ops to show that they have intimated the complainant about the checking of the impugned meter in the M.E.Lab, vide some other mode. The provisions of circular No.45/97 of PSEB, made it mandatory, on the part of the officials of the Corporation/Board to intimate the consumer to remain present in the M.E.Lab during the checking of the meter. In the case of Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Daljit Kaur 1(2004)CPJ 48, it was  held by the Hon’ble State Commission,  Punjab Chandigarh, that “circular No. 45/97 of PSEB requires that when a meter is removed for replacement, it must be got sealed, after having packed in a cardboard box and should be signed by the consumer and counter signed by the Board official. It also requires that consumer should be present at the time of the checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab.”  In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not hesitate to conclude that the checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab was done  by the OPs in violation of their own mandatory rules and regulations. Hence the bill dated 1.5.2016 is liable to be quashed.

7.          Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and quash the bill dated 1.5.2016. The Ops are directed  to issue a fresh bill for the period from 22.2.2016 to 1.5.2016 on the basis of average of  last six months consumption of electricity . The Ops are also burdened with Rs.3000/-as costs to be paid to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to comply the order within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:2.11.2017       

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER