Punjab

Sangrur

CC/149/2015

Deepak Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    149

                                                Instituted on:      19.03.2015

                                                Decided on:       05.06.2015

 

Deepak Jain aged about 24 years son of Shri Parmodh Jain, resident of Old Lohtia Bazar, 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, City-II, Malerkotla.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Ritesh Garg, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Deepak Jain, 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 the complainant obtained one electricity connection from the Ops in February, 2014 and account number L333SB670421L was allotted with a sanctioned load of 1.00 KW. It is further averred that the house of the complainant where the connection is running is lying vacant and locked and as such the complainant obtained the electricity connection only for emergency purposes.

 

2.             It is further averred that the on 18.6.2014 the complainant received a bill dated 11.6.2014 for Rs.98,445/- for the period from 28.2.2014 to 11.6.2014, as such the complainant immediately approached the Op and submitted application dated 18.6.2014 and OP number  2 assured the complainant that he will look into the matter. The complainant also deposited Rs.120/- as meter challenge fee. It is further mentioned that on 24.6.2014 one official of the OPs visited the premises of the complainant and gave his report that the meter is running without any load and the house is locked permanently.  The officials of the Ops changed the meter and installed a new meter. It is further stated that the old meter was not removed as per the instructions of the OPs nor the same was checked in the ME laboratory by the OPs nor any notice was sent to the complainant for checking of the meter.   Thereafter the Ops issued bill dated 3.11.2014 for Rs.1,07,789/- for the period from 14.8.2014 to 18.10.2014 and further issued another bill for Rs.1,08,198/-, as such the complainant approached the Ops for withdrawal of the same, but of no avail. 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.98,445/- raised vide bill dated 11.6.2014 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             In reply, legal objections on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and cause of action are taken up.  On merits, it is admitted that the Ops had issued bill dated 11.6.2014 for Rs.98,445/-. It is further admitted that the complainant moved an application dated 18.6.2014 on 23.6.2014 and as such the Ops asked the complainant to deposit the meter challenge fee, who deposited the same on 26.6.2014 vide receipt number 47274.  Thereafter the meter in question was changed and sent to the ME laboratory, where it was tested on 17.7.2014 and found OK. Issuance of further bill for Rs.1,07,789/- to the complainant is also admitted.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of application, Ex.C-2 copy of endorsement on the application, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 copies of bills, Ex.C-5 copy of receipt, Ex.C-6 affidavit, Ex.C-7 copy of application, Ex.C-8 copy of endorsement on the application and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-3 copies of bills, Ex.OP-4 copy of application, Ex.OP-5 copy of MCO, Ex.OP-6 copy of store challan and closed evidence.

 

5.             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.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining an electricity connection bearing account number L333SB670421L with a sanctioned load of 1.00 KW.  It is further admitted by the Ops that bill dated 11.6.2014 for Rs.98,445/- for the period from 28.2.2014 to 11.6.2014.  In the present case, the complainant has challenged the validity of the bill dated 11.6.2014 saying that the same is wrong and illegal one.  As such, the complainant submitted the application to the Ops on 23.6.2014 and further challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing the meter challenge fee of Rs.120/- on 24.6.2014 with the OPs. 

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the whole of the case file and found that the sanctioned load of the complainant is only 1.00 KW and the Ops issued the bill dated 11.6.2014 for Rs.98,445/-.  There is no explanation in the written reply filed by the Ops that for a connection having 1.00 KW load, how a bill for Rs.98,445/- can be raised/issued and how there can be such a huge consumption by the meter.  The complainant also challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing the fee of Rs.120/- for checking of the meter in the ME laboratory, but the same was never checked in the ME laboratory in the presence of the complainant according to the prescribed regulations of the OPs. However, the case of the Ops in the written reply is that the meter in question was checked in the ME laboratory on 17.7.2014 and found OK.  But, there is nothing on the file that how and when the complainant was intimated to come present in the ME laboratory nor there is any evidence on record showing that the meter in question was checked in the presence of the complainant or his representative as prescribed 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.  There is nothing mentioned in the written reply of the OPs that whether the meter in question was packed in the cardboard box and thereafter it was sealed and signed by the complainant and officer/officials of the OPs.    The electricity meter in question was neither checked in the presence of the consumer or his representative.  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 it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

8.             Further an application was also submitted by the complainant to the OPs, which is on record as Ex.C-1 (Ex.OP-4) clearly reveals that on the request of the complainant, the official of the Ops visited the house of the complainant to check the meter in question and on the back side of the application, he reported ‘that he visited the house of the complainant on 24.6.2014 and found that the meter in question was working even without putting any load on the meter and the house in question was also locked’.  There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that if according to the report of their own official, the meter was working/moving even without putting any load on the meter and even the house was in locked condition, how there could be such an excessive bill, more so when there is only a 1 KW load of the connection of the complainant.  As such, we feel that the bill dated 11.6.2014 for Rs.98,445/- is quite excessive and exaggerated one. 

 

9.             We have also perused the copy of meter change order dated 26.6.2014, which is on record as Ex.OP-5, which was effected on 27.6.2014.  But, it is worth mentioning here that the meter in question was sent to the ME laboratory only on 17.09.2014 vide store challan, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-6.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they kept the meter in their custody for 83 days and why they did not follow the Regulation number 71.2.2, wherein it has been clearly provided that the removed meter should be sent to the ME laboratory promptly after removal but in no case it should be delayed beyond a period of fifteen days from the date of removal of the meter from the consumer’s premises. It is further stated in the said regulation that while sending the challenged meters to the ME laboratory this fact must be clearly indicated on the MCO and AE/AEE ME be requested for intimation of test results at the earliest.  After the meter is received in the laboratory, it should be promptly tested and test results intimated to the AE/AEE/XEn, OPs.  But, in the present case, nothing like that has been done by the OPs nor the instructions contained therein have been followed.  As such, we are unable to accept the contention of the Ops that the meter in question was found quite OK in the ME laboratory as alleged by the Ops in their written reply.   

 10.            A bare perusal of the file reveals that the initial dispute is over issuance of the bill dated 11.06.2014 for Rs.98,445/- for the period from 28.2.2014 to 11.6.2014 and thereafter the complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing the requisite fee of Rs.120/- with the OPs, but at the time of effecting the meter change order, the removed electricity meter was neither packed in the card board box nor checked in the presence of the consumer or his representative.  In the circumstances of the case, we find it proper to direct the OPs to charge the complainant for the said period on average basis on 1 KW load.

 

11.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.98,445/- raised through bill dated 11.06.2014 and also withdraw the bills issued thereafter including that demand of Rs.98445/-.  We further order the Ops to issue a fresh bill to the complainant for the disputed period by charging the average of 1 KW load.   It is further ordered that the amounts so deposited by the complainant against the above said demand be refunded or adjusted against the fresh bill to be issued to the complainant. It is further ordered that the amount if found in excess be refunded to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of  compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and an amount of Rs.5500/- on account of  litigation expenses.  

 

12.            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.

                June 5, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member