Punjab

Sangrur

CC/398/2014

Chand Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

11 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    398

                                                Instituted on:      15.07.2014

                                                Decided on:       11.03.2015

 

Chand Singh aged about 62 years son of Late Shri Jeet Singh son of Kapoor Singh, resident of Village Hathoa, Tehsil Malerkotla.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     AEE, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Sub Urban, Satta Bazar, Malerkotla.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Chand Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that father of the complainant, Shri Jeet Singh obtained one electricity connection bearing account number L36HA450094A with a sanctioned load of 2.0 KW  from the OPs and the father of the complainant, Shri Jeet Singh died on 7.12.1989. It is further averred that after death of Shri Jeet Singh, the complainant has been using the electricity connection and paying the bills regularly to the OPs, as such, he is a consumer of the OPs being the beneficiary of the connection in question.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that he received a bill in the month of February, 2013 for Rs.5170/-, as such he approached the OP number 2 and requested to look into the matter as average of his bill remains from Rs.600/- to Rs.800/- only, but the Op asked the complainant to deposit the bill in question, otherwise to face disconnection of the electricity connection, as such the complainant deposited the bill in question on 6.2.2013. It is further averred that the complainant also challenged the accuracy of the meter and deposited Rs.120/- for the same vide receipt number 317 dated 7.2.2013. It is further averred that in the month of April, 2013, the officials of the OPs changed the old meter with a new one. But, the officials of the Ops neither packed nor sealed the removed meter as per the rules and regulations of the OPs.  It is further stated that the complainant received a bill in the month of April, 2013 for Rs.20,000/- and the complainant approached OP number 2 complaining excessive bill and apprised that he has challenged the accuracy of the meter and as such, the OP got deposited Rs.2450/- vide receipt number 307 dated 10.4.2013. It is further stated  that again the complainant received a bill in May, 2013 for Rs.20,000/- and the OP got deposited Rs.720/- vide receipt dated 27.5.2013. The complainant again received a bill in July, 2013 for Rs.20,000/- and the OP got deposited Rs.1000/- vide receipt dated 24.7.2013. Thereafter, in the month of September, 2013, the OP received bill for Rs.20,000/- and the OP got deposited Rs.950/-. Thereafter the complainant received bill dated 30.11.2013 for Rs.20,869/- and bill dated 23.1.2014 for Rs.20,739/- and the complainant deposited Rs.500/- vide receipt dated 29.01.2014. It is further stated that the complainant again approached OP number 2 to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.20,000/-, but nothing happened despite repeated visits of the complainant to the OPs.  It is further stated that the removed meter of the complainant was never checked in the ME laboratory and as such the demand is said to be wrong and illegal. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.20,259/- raised vide bill dated 23.1.2014 on account of balance of current financial year and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs as the connection in question is running in the name of Jeet Singh, father of the complainant.    On merits, it is admitted that the connection in question is running in the name of Shri Jeet Singh, father of the complainant. It is further admitted that the bill for 2/2013 was issued for Rs.5170/-. It is further admitted that the complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing meter challenge fee of Rs.120/- vide receipt number 317 dated 7.2.2013 and removal of old meter in the month of April, 2013 is also admitted.  It is also admitted that the demand of Rs.20,000/- was raised against the complainant in April, 2013. It is stated that the old meter was packed and sealed in the card board box as per rules of the PSPCL. Thereafter the old meter was checked in the ME laboratory Sangrur on 26.12.2013 vide store challan number 51 dated 26.12.2013 and the meter was found OK and after receiving the report of ME laboratory Sangrur, the complainant was disclosed that the meter is OK and he is bound to deposit the entire bill amount with surcharge.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             In rejoinder, the allegations of the complainant in the complaint have been reiterated. However, it is denied that the meter in question was ever checked in the ME laboratory. 

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of bills, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-15 copy of receipts, Ex.C-16 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of receipt, Ex.OP-2 copy of ME laboratory report, Ex.OP-3 affidavit, Ex.OP-4 to Ex.OP-5 copies of ledger and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact the connection in question is running in the name of father of the complainant Shri Jeet Singh and since Shri Jeet Singh has died on 7.12.1989, the complainant has been using the electricity connection in question and paying the bills regularly, as such he has stepped into the shoes of his father, Shri Jeet singh and has been paying the bills since then. As such, he is a consumer of the OPs being the beneficiary of the connection in question.

 

8.             In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on raising of the demand of Rs.20,000/- by the OPs in the bill for the month of April, 2013.  The complainant after receiving the bill in question challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing Rs.120/- vide receipt number 317 dated 7.2.2013 and in the month of April, 2013 the meter in question was replaced with a new one by the OPs, but the old removed meter was not packed and sealed in a cardboard box according to the rules and regulations of the OPs.  It is further contended that the complainant was never called to come present in the ME laboratory at the time of checking of the old removed meter.  Further there is nothing mentioned in the reply of the complaint that the complainant was ever called to join the checking of the meter in the ME laboratory nor the Ops have produced any documentary evidence to show that the complainant was ever called to come present in the ME laboratory.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the removed meter in question was not packed and sealed as per the instructions contained in commercial circular number 8/99, which provides that as per the existing instructions contained in para 2 ( c) of CC number 45/97 dated 17.12.1997, it is mandatory that all meters removed against any MCO are to be sent to ME laboratories, in the sealed card box duly signed by the concerned PSEB officers/officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case, consumer refused to sign the meter test results/report, such meters shall be kept in the sealed box by the OP.S/Divn. till the final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Dispute Settlement Committee or Civil Courts, such sealed meter shall be returned to the ME laboratories. Similar procedure is to be adopted in case meters sealed by the Enforcement Agencies/Operation Organization in theft cases.”  But, in the present case, no such instructions have been followed by the Ops rather the same have been violated by the own officers/officials of the OPs. Further there is no explanation from the side of the OPs that on what account, the OPs are demanding such a huge amount of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant.     In Tarsem Singh versus Punjab State Electricity Board 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 584 (P&H), it has been held that checking of the defective meters should be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative.  A notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date, time and place of testing of meter.  Procedure prescribed to this effect in the Punjab State Electricity Board’s Commercial circulars number 45/98 and 8/99 is mandatory.  But, in the present case, there is no explanation that why such instructions as contained in the commercial circular number 8/99 were not adhered to by the OPs.  In these circumstances, we feel that such a checking carries no value in the eye of law and we further find it is to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find that OPs are not only deficient in rendering service to the complainant by raising such a huge demand of Rs.20,000/- vide bill dated 2/2013, but are also negligent by not adhering to their own instructions as contained in commercial circular number 8/99 regarding checking and testing of the defective meters.  Moreover, the Ops have also not joined the complainant at the time of checking the meter in the ME laboratory. 

 

10.            In result of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.20,000/- raised vide bill dated 2/2013.  We further order the OPs to refund to the complainant, the amount, if any deposited by the complainant against the above said demand.  The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and litigation expenses.

 

11.    This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                March 11,2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member