DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA (PUNJAB)

CC No. 337 of 27-07-2010

Decided on : 15-11-2010

Harbans Singh S/o Sh. Hazura Singh, aged about 56 years, R/o Street No. 10, Adarsh Nagar, Bathinda.

.... Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through its C.M.D.

2. Sub Divisional Officer/A.E.E. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Cantt. Sub Division, Bathinda.

..... Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM

Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. S.P.S. Bhagirath, counsel for the complainant.

For the Opposite parties : Sh. R.D. Goyal, counsel for the

opposite parties.

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The complainant is holding electric connection bearing A/c No. B11GR150646L, the meter of which is installed on the pole in the street outside the premises of the complainant. The meter of the complainant became defective for the last two years and the complainant informed the opposite parties about the same and requested the opposite parties to replace the said defective meter with new one. He also requested opposite party No. 2 to get the requisite fee deposited from the complainant but the opposite party No. 2 told the complainant that the meters were not available in the stock and whenever meter in the stock would be available, the opposite parties will replace the same with new one. The opposite parties made direct supply of the complainant from the last two years and then issuing the bills to the complainant on average basis for those last two years. The opposite parties have not replaced the said defective meter despite repeated requests made by the complainant. The complainant has also written a letter dated 29-12-2009 to the opposite parties for the replacement of the defective meter at the earliest possible as the complainant is suffering huge loss due to non-replacement of the defective meter with a new one but the opposite parties are issuing bills for the last two years to the complainant on average basis which has been exaggerated at the rate of Rs. 3540/-, 4800/-, 4590/-, 6790/-, 9290/-, 12,200/- and Rs. 5720/- and the complainant has been depositing the above said bills issued by the opposite parties on average basis although those were very exaggerated and exorbitant. The complainant has got another bill dated 07-06-2010 for Rs. 5840/- which shows the status of the meter as 'D'. The opposite parties have issued a notice/memo No. 393 dated 1.7.2010 to the complainant on the ground that connection of the complainant was checked on 30.6.2010 by A.E. City Rampura and the that complainant was using direct electricity supply and the meter was lying defective. The opposite parties made a case of theft of electricity and directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,24,725/- with the opposite parties on this account. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties have failed to install the new meter in his premises from more than two years. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint to seek the direction of this Forum to quash the alleged demand of Rs. 1,24,725/-, to issue correct bills in lieu of bills issued on average basis and to install new and accurate meter in the premises of the complainant and demanded Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment.

2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and have pleaded and admitted that meter has been installed in the name of the complainant outside his premises. The meter reader gave the report regarding the defectiveness of the meter of the complainant and gave 'D' remark in the Consumer Meter Reader Book. So, the bills were issued on the basis of the average for 'D' code. The opposite parties have pleaded that complainant did not inform at any time to the opposite parties regarding the defect of the meter, so there was no question of depositing the requisite fee for replacement of the meter. The opposite parties have never told the complainant that meters were not available in the stores at any time. The meter would be replaced when the complainant would deposit the requisite fee for the change of the meter which the complainant had not deposited till date. The complainant filed an application dated 29-12-2009 for the change of the meter and on the basis of his application, an intimation was given to the complainant for depositing the requisite fee for replacing the meter but the complainant has failed to deposit the requisite fee. As such, the bills have been issued to the complainant on average basis. The opposite parties have pleaded that complainant did not lodge any complaint at any time except the letter dated 29-12-2009 and they have issued all the bills as per rules and regulations of Punjab State Electricity Board. The connection of the complainant was checked on 30-06-2010 in the presence of the complainant who has also signed the checking report after receiving copy of the checking report. The checking was made by the SDO Sh. Bhola Singh Chahal and Tejwinder Singh J.E. City Rampura, and at the time of checking, the meter was found burnt. The complainant was using direct supply of electricity which is a theft case. On the basis of this checking, provisional order of assessment No. 393 dated 1-7-2010 was issued to the complainant.

3. The parties have led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard and the documents alongwith written submissions placed on file by the parties perused.

5. A perusal of checking report Ex. C-4 shows that it is mentioned in it that it was found at the spot that meter was burnt and complainant was consuming electricity directly and appropriate action be taken as per rules of the Board. The complainant has written a letter dated 29-12-2009 Ex. C-5 to the opposite parties that his meter is defective and requested them to replace his defective meter. The opposite parties also wrote a memo No. 2998 dated 31-12-2009 Ex. R-5 to the complainant which is reproduced hereunder :-

   “Sub : A/c No. GR 15-0646 – Regarding change of meter

   In connection with above, it is written that meter of the above said connection is defective. So, deposit the fee of Rs. 320/- in the office, so that meter can be replaced and the bills be issued correctly. This is for your information.”

   A perusal of both the letters i.e. Ex. C-5 written by the complainant which has been produced by the complainant in his evidence and the letter of the opposite parties Ex. R-5 which has been produced by the opposite parties in their evidence, does not show any receipt by each of them. Thus, these letters cannot be relied upon. The complainant has asserted that opposite party No. 2 told him that his meter would be replaced on its availability as the meters were not available in the store and on the other hand the version of the opposite parties is that complainant has not deposited the meter change fee.

   Where the meter is installed outside the premises of a consumer, the consumer will not be responsible for the protection of such a meter from theft or damage. Regulation No. 21.2(c) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007 of P.S.E.B. provides that :-

“The Licensee may require a meter to be installed outside the premises of a consumer and in such an event, the entire cost of installing the meter outside the premises are providing a display unit within the

premises will be borne by the Licensee. However, the cost of display unit will be treated as part of the meter cost while determining meter rentals. In a case where the meter/metering equipment is installed by the Licensee outside the premises of a consumer, the consumer will not be responsible for the protection of the meter from theft or damage.”

6. The meter of the complainant was installed outside his residential premises as admitted by the opposite parties in para No. 2 of their written statement. The meter reader of the opposite parties must be going periodically to check the meter reading of the complainant. As the meter of the complainant was installed outside his residential premises, sole responsibility of the meter was of the opposite parties and not of the complainant and he is not liable to pay for the fault committed by the officials of the opposite parties. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing memo No. 393 dated 1.7.10 Ex. C-2 raising demand of Rs. 1,24,725/- from the complainant.

7. In view of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted with compensation for mental harassment and cost to the tune of Rs. 1,000/- and the memo No. 393 dated 1.7.10 raising demand of Rs. 1,24,725/- from the complainant is hereby quashed with the directions to the parties as under :-

   a) The opposite parties are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant and issue him fresh bills for the period for which he had been charged on average basis, considering the consumption of the complainant of the previous year of those particulars months/period and to adjust the amount he has already deposited.

   b) The opposite parties are also directed to furnish the detailed statement to the complainant by showing each and every bill of the complainant i.e. charged on average basis and the bill of the previous year of that particular month.

   c) The complainant is directed to deposit the meter change fee with the opposite parties within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

   d) The opposite parties are directed to install new and accurate meter in place of the burnt meter of the complainant, within next 15 days from the date of receipt of deposit of the fee by the complainant and issue him the future bills on actual consumption basis.

   e) The compliance with regard to paras (a) & (b) mentioned above, be made within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced

15-11-2010

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul) Member