DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 49/2015
Date of Institution : 11.03.2015
Date of Decision : 24.07.2015
Bhushan Kumar son of Sehaj Ram, resident of B-X/913, K.C. Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Division, Barnala through its XEN.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Division, Barnala through its S.D.O.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Yadwinder Goyal counsel for the complainant.
Sh. SK Kotia counsel for opposite parties
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(MS. VANDANA SIDHU MEMBER):
Sh. Bhushan Kumar son of Sehaj Ram has filed the present complaint No. 49/2015 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. As per complaint, complainant is consumer of the opposite parties vide electric connection No. L22KC630650X which is running in the residence premises of the complainant and complainant is paying the electricity consumption bills regularly without making any fault, as such the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. Electric meter of 4 KW load which has installed in the premises of the complainant and most probably regular bill of the said meter is about Rs. 3500/- to Rs. 4000/- and the complainant paid the electricity bill dated 15.10.2014 in regard of 653 units amounting to Rs. 4,263/- and also paid the bill of Rs. 3,820/- vide receipt dated 22.12.2014. On 11.2.2015 the complainant received bill No. 878 for an amount of Rs. 18,625/- showing the consumption of 506 units. Complainant visited the office of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and inquired about the excess bill but the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 failed to satisfy the complainant and directed the complainant to deposit the amount first and if any amount in excess it will be adjusted in future bills. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that no notice of the said demand was ever served upon the complainant and no opportunity of being heard was given to the complainant before raising such illegal demand as such the opposite parties ignored the natural principle of justice i.e. Audi, alterm partm. The status of meter was shown O means thereby OK in all the bills which were received by the complainant time to time and the demand raised by the opposite parties in regard to Rs. 18,625/- as per bill dated 11.2.2015 is illegal, against law and facts, arbitrary, under monopoly and against the rules and regulations of the department, as such the opposite parties are not entitled to recover the said huge amount from the complainant as the complainant is not bound to pay. So, the above mentioned act and conduct of the opposite parties caused great mental shock, pain and agony to the complainant and also caused physical harassment and opposite parties are out to tarnish the image of the complainant by leveling false allegations and threatening the complainant to disconnect the electric connection to which the opposite parties have no right to do so and the said act of the opposite parties falls within the deficiency of service. Hence the present complaint, is filed by complainant seeking, following reliefs
1) to set aside the bill dated 11.2.2015 by the opposite parties of Rs. 18,625/- and send the correct bill and not to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant.
2) To pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment and further to pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
The complainant is residing at Barnala and office of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 are situated at Barnala which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum, hence this Forum has got the jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present complaint.
2. Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed their version taking legal objections interalia on the ground that instant complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts. It is further submitted by opposite parties in legal objections that the account of the complainant was audited by the audit party and as per the audit report dated 17.11.2014 and record the meter installed in the premises of the complainant stopped to work in the month of October 2013 at consumption of electricity i.e. reading 28773. The complainant has come to the knowledge to the opposite parties vide his application dated 11.8.2014 in regard of non working of the meter vide his application on dated 11.8.2014 and deposited the required meter changing fee. However, the complainant has deposited monthly minimum charges only. The meter of the complainant has been changed vide MCO dated 19.8.2014. The old meter was continued to stop at reading 28773 for a period from October 2013 up to changing of new meter. Now the account of the complainant has been audited and as per the above mentioned report of the audit party and record of the opposite parties the amount which is receivable from the complainant as under.
Receivable Amount Already Received
Amount
Month Units SOP ED OD Units SOP ED OD
8/14 735 Avg. 4254 553 74 586 3236 424 59
6/14 669 Avg. 3821 497 67 408
4/14 417 Avg. 2218 288 42 408
2/14 379 Avg. 1990 259 38 408
12/13 757 Avg. 4331 563 76 408
Total 16614 2160 297 4868 424 59
Receivable Difference (16614-4868) (2160-424) (297-59)
11746 1736 238 Rs. 13,720/-
The amount of Rs. 13,720/- has been included in the bill No. 878 dated 11.2.2015 of Rs. 18,625/- and after changing new meter the first bill of the new meter has been sent to the complainant of 518 units of average basis but the actual consumption i.e first reading of new meter is 1725 units but the complainant has deposited the bill of 518 units only. So, except the above mentioned amount of Rs. 13,720/- the complainant is also liable to be deposit the amount of 1207 units (1725 units-518 units 1207 Units) i.e. Rs. 7,200/- approximately, which will be recovered from the complainant. The amount which is to be receivable is for consumption only. The copy of the audit report has also been given to the complainant.
3. On merits, all the allegations of the complainant are totally denied by the opposite parties and prayed that the complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence copy of electricity bill dated 1.9.2014 Ex.C-1, copy of receipt for Rs. 3,770/- Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 15.10.2014 Ex.C-3, copy of receipt of Rs. 4,190/- Ex.C-4, copy of bill in question dated 11.2.2015 Ex.C-5, affidavit of Bhushan Kumar Ex.C-6, copy of receipt of Rs. 3,820/- Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
5. To rebut the case of the complainant opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Krishan Gopal Ex.OP-1, copy of audit report Ex.OP-2, copy of application dated 11.8.2014 Ex.OP-3, copy of MCO Ex.OP-4, copy of data consumption detail Ex.OP-5, copies of bills Ex.OP-6 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
7. After hearing counsel for both the parties and perusing the entire record we observed that no demand notice sent to the complainant. As per legal objections and affidavit Ex. OP-1 by Krishan Gopal SDO it is clearly mentioned in para No. 2 about non working of the electricity meter which was installed in the premises of the complainant in the month of October 2013 at reading 28773. The complainant has brought in the knowledge of the opposite parties about non working of the electricity meter vide his application Ex.OP-3 dated 11.8.2014, so this is question of surprise for this Forum why the opposite parties did not issue a notice to complainant on October 2013 when the above stated fact came in the knowledge of the opposite parties and why opposite parties kept mum and showed on Ex.OP-5 about status of meter O which means OK, so being a corporation which falls under Electricity Act did not obey Section 26 (6) and 26 (1) of the above stated Act. It is also worthwhile that as per Ex.OP-5 i.e. data consumption of Account No. KC-63/650 of the complainant, consumption showed by the opposite parties regarding cycle No. 4 i.e month of October 2013 consumption of meter is 613 units regarding cycle No. 5 i.e. month of November 2013 consumption is 757 units and status of meter showed O and data consumption of year 2013-14 till July 2014 consumption showed 379 units as per cycle No. 6,417 units as per cycle No. 1 and 669 units as per cycle No. 2 and status of meter also showed O. But the bills which were issued to the complainant as per Ex.OP-2 i.e. audit report on averages basis, which is gross negligence in service and bill in question Ex.C-5 regarding Rs. 18,625/- is illegal, arbitrary, under monopoly and against the rules and regulations of the department.
8. Now the second issue is whether electrical inspector followed the procedure which is mentioned in Electricity Act Sub Section 26 (1) and 26 (6) and regulation No. 73.1.1 of Sales Regulations. As per above stated sections and regulations- in receipt of report regarding a meter become dead, stop or burnt it should be promptly replaced and necessary inquiries conducted. The meter alongwith the report should be forwarded to ME Lab for further action. In case the meter was defective of dead stop it was obligatory for opposite parties to refer the matter to Chief Electrical Inspector for his decision, who alone is competent to give his finding regarding the liability of the consumer to pay charges and this liability cannot be extended beyond six months but in this case nothing was brought on record by the opposite parties to send the burnt meter in ME Lab for further action and to refer the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector and the procedure has not been followed by the department as stated above and this fact has been held by Hon'ble Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Pritam Singh Brar Versus Chandigarh Electricity Department and Anr. Reported in 2005 (4) CPJ-548. In this judgment Sections 26 (1) and 26 (6) also reproduce as under.-
Section 26 (1)
In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the amount of energy supplied to a consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply shall be ascertained by means of a correct meter, and the licensee shall, if required by the consumer, cause the consumer to be supplied with such a meter.
Section 26 (6)
Where any difference or dispute arises as to whether any meter referred to in Sub-section (1) is or is not correct, the matter shall be decided, upon the application of either party, by an Electrical Inspector, and where the meter has, in the opinion of such inspector ceased to be correct, such Inspector shall estimate the amount of the energy supplied to the consumer or the electrical quantity contained in the supply, during such time, not exceeding six months, as the matter shall not, in the opinion of such Inspector, have been correct, but save as aforesaid, the register of the meter shall, in the absence of fraud, be conclusive proof of such amount of quantity.
9. Moreover, as per para 3 (d) of complaint it is submitted by complainant that opposite parties ignored the natural principle of justice i.e audi, alterm partm because no notice was issued to the complainant in regard of Rs. 18,625/- and no opportunity of being heard was given to the complainant before raising such illegal demand.
We keen to prefer the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled Punjab State Electricity Board and Another Versus Ashwani Kumar reported in 1993 PLJ-373 in which it is held that.-
(a) Natural justice-Order which has civil consequences- Has to be passed in accordance with principles of natural justice- Principle of audi alteram partem i.e. call, question and decide- Applicable- Order has to be passed after giving reasonable opportunity to person who is likely to be affected-Only guarantee against any arbitrary action-Every provision should be interpreted in such a way that there is no violation of principles of natural justice.
(b) Indian Electricity Act, 1910 Section 26 (6)-Incumbent upon concerned authority to grant opportunity to consumer while passing order under Clause 15 of Abridged Conditions of Supply- Opportunity not given to consumer-Neither the bill nor communication constitutes a notice to consumer to show cause-Failure to grant opportunity-Seriously prejudiced interest of consumer- Not enough that consumer present at the time of raid-Incumbent on Authorities to give consumer a notice with detailed facts and make him aware of its proposal to raise the demand-Only then can it be possible for person concerned to submit a full and detailed reply- Abridged Conditions of Supply, Clause 15 (Paras 9, 11, 13).
10. In view of the above discussion, in our view the present complaint is maintainable and the same is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs. 18,625/- vide bill No. 878 dated 11.2.2015. However, the opposite parties are directed to send a new correct bill as per law after giving notice to the complainant. There is no order as to costs or compensation. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
24th Day of July, 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member
