DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PATIALA
Consumer Complaint No. 140 dt.24/04/2019
Decided on: 09/01/2023
Baljit Singh aged about 37 years son of late S. Darshan Singh son of late Jiwan Singh resident of H. No.32-A, Saheed Udham Singh Nagar (Ekta Colony) Jhill Road, Patiala. ...Complainant
Versus
- Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall Patiala through its Chairman.
- SDO, West Commercial (North) Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Near Railway Station, Patiala.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 11 to 14 of the
Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, President
Sh. G. S.Nagi, Member
ARGUED BY:
Complainant in person.
Sh. G. S. Dhaliwal Adv. counsel for the Opposite Parties.
ORDER
S. K. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 1 TO 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties i.e. PSPCL. In brief, complainant is a consumer of PSPCL having domestic connection bearing A/c No.3000028571. Complainant has been paying the bills regularly till 2017. Complainant has averred that his meter got defective which was replaced by an old and defective meter. There was a problem in the supply of the complainant and the matter was reported to the OPs Ex.CW1/B, When the officials of the OPs came to attend the complaint, it was observed that meter of the complainant was not working and direct supply was given to him on 11/11/2017 Ex.CW1/D. Subsequently a new meter was installed at his premises during November 2018. That the bill dt.12/01/2019 was issued to the complainant for the period 12/9/2018 to 12/01/2019 for 112 days amounting to Rs.32290/- Ex.CW1/E, which including Rs.1834/- as consumption charges and 30208 as sundry charges. Complainant disputed the bill and approached the OPs for clarification of the same. The matter was referred to the dispute Settlement committee of the OPs and was decided on 1/2/2019. Another amount of Rs.10447/- was demanded from the complainant on account of excess load which is not justified as complainant is having single phase connection only. Now a bill of Rs.24040/- has been issued on 18/3/2019 Ex.CW1/G in which an amount of Rs.16879/- has been demanded as sundry charges along with consumption charges of Rs.3663/-. It is now prayed that bill dt.12/01/2019 for Rs.32290/- and subsequently bill dt.18/03/2019 for Rs.24040/- was declared null and void and amount of Rs.10447/- demanded on account of excess load be also set aside.
2. In reply filed by the OPs, they have denied the averment of the complainant that the complainant normally received electricity bill for an amount of Rs.2000/- to 2300/- for two months in the year 2017. Ops have admitted that the meter of the complainant was replaced and bills on average basis were issued to the complainant for the period the meter remained defective, as per the consumption of the complainant in corresponding months of the last year. The meter at the time of replacement was properly sealed and sent to the ME Lab for checking. During the checking of the meter in the ME Lab vide report no.39116 dt.29/11/2018 (OP-5) the reading of the meter was found to be 16680 where as the complainant had paid bills upto a reading of 13265. As such the amount of Rs.30028/- was charged on account of actual consumption recorded by the meter. The complainant contested the same and the matter was referred to dispute settlement Committee. As per the order of dispute settlement committee Ex.OP-9 an amount of Rs.18606/- was adjusted in the account of the complainant on 11/3/2019. The load of the complainant was also checked Ex.OP-11 which was found to be 3.66KW against the sanctioned load of 0.98KW and an amount of Rs.10447/- was charged to the complainant on account of excess load. Notice was issued to the complainant for depositing the same (OP-12). However the same was not deposited by the complainant and was charged in the monthly bills of the complainant dt.18/03/2019. The bills issued to the complainant are in order and are recoverable.
3. In order to prove his case Complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CW1/A his duly sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.CW1/B copy of application dt.22/6/17, Ex.CW1/C copy of postal receipt, Ex.CW1/D copy of DSO letter dt.11/11/17, Ex.CW1/E copy of bill dt.12/1/19, Ex.CW1/F copy of receipt regarding deposit of Rs.5140/-, Ex.CW1/G copy of bill dt.18/3/2019, Ex.CW1/H copy of bill dt.12/01/2019 with writing dt.23/1/2019 and closed his evidence.
4. Ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Jatinder Singh Kanda, SDO, PSPCL along with documents Ex.OP-1 & OP-2 copies of bills, Ex.OP-3 copy of MR Data, Ex.OP-4 copy of statement, Ex.OP-5 copy of ME Lab report, Ex.OP-6 copy of meter change order, Ex.OP-7 copy of Judgement dt.15/7/2015, Ex.OP-8 letter to Baljit Singh, Ex.OP-9 copy of order of Dispute Settlement Committee, Ex .OP-10 calculation sheet,Ex.OP-11 checking report no.180/28 dt.31/1/2019, Ex.OP-12 notice no.826 dt.26/02/2019 and closed the evidence.
5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant as well as heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. On perusal of the record, it has been observed that the meter of the complainant had gone defective somewhere between 19/1/2017 and 22/03/2017 (Ex.OP-3)and was replaced on 16/7/2017 and a new meter was installed with initial reading of 10028. This meter had again gone defective and was finally replaced on 19/11/2018. In between direct supply was given to the complainant from 11/11/2017. During this period the bills based on average basis were issued to the complainant. However while the defective meter replaced on 19/11/2018 was checked in the ME Lab Ex.OP-5. The difference of reading recorded by the meter (16680) and reading built (13265) was observed which was charged to the complainant. The complainant disputed the same and approached the dispute settlement committee for resolution of its grievances. The dispute settlement committee Ex.OP-9 giving the benefit of doubt to the complainant ordered for revision of same for the period 21/9/2017 to 19/09/2018. However the complainant was not satisfied with the implementation of the order of the Dispute Settlement Committee by the OPs.
7. As per Electricity Act 2003 Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission have been conferred with the power under Section 181 read with Sections 43,44,45, 46, 47, 48,50, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 126, 127, 135, 152, 154 & 163 of the Electricity Act 2003 for framing the rules and regulations governing the supply of electricity. The Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission had then issued supply code 2014 for governing various conditions regarding the supply of the electricity.
8. As per Regulation 21.5.2 of the Supply Code 2014 in case of Defective (other than inaccurate)/ Dead Stop/ Burnt/ Stolen Meters:-
“The accounts of a consumer shall be overhauled/ billed for the period meter remained defective/ dead stop subject to maximum period of six months. In case of burnt/ stolen meter, where supply has been made direct, the account shall be overhauled for the period of direct supply subject to maximum period of six months. The procedure for overhauling the account of the consumer shall be as under:]
- On the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year;
- In case the consumption of corresponding period of the previous year as referred in para (a) above is not available, the average monthly consumption of previous six (6) months during which the meter was functional, shall be adopted for overhauling of accounts;
9. From the regulations it is clear that the account of the consumer can be overhauled for a maximum period of six months if the meter of the consumer goes defective. The OPs have acted in violation of the said regulation and have billed the complainant on average basis for the period 21/09/2017 to 19/11/2018.
10. In view of the above, it is held that the account of the complainant be overhauled for a period of six months from 21/09/2017 to 20/03/2018 on the basis of the consumption recorded by the consumer during the same period calculated from 24/09/2015 to 15/03/2016 as per the regulation 21.5.2 a of the Supply Code 2014. The complainant be billed on the basis of minimum charges for the period 20/03/2018 to 19/11/2018. Further since the meter in dispute is defective and the complainant is to be billed as per Regulation 21.5.2 so the units recorded by the defective meter detected in the ME Lab are not chargeable. Therefore, the amount of Rs.30208/- claimed as sundry charges in the bill issued to the complainant for the period 12/09/2018 to 12/01/2019 on account of above is not recoverable. Further the amount of Rs.10447/- charged to the complainant on account of excess load found during the checking Ex.OP-11 is recoverable. Complaint is partly allowed. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. The instant complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
ANNOUNCED*
Dated: 09/01/2023
( G S Nagi ) ( S. K. Aggarwal )
Member President
