Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/317

Jaspreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/14/317 of 14.11.2014

                                      Decided on: 22.04.2015

 

Jaspreet Singh S/o Sh.Harpal Singh R/o 4024, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Patiala.

 

                                                                   ………….Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation, Patiala, through its Chief Managing Director, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala.

2.       SDO, Operation, PSPCL, Sub Division Bahadurgarh (Suburban), District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Ops

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member                               

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.R.S.Sethi  , Advocate

For Ops:                        Sh.P.S.Walia,Advocate          

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. The complainant is the holder of domestic electricity connection bearing account No.P41GC410074W installed at House No.4024, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Patiala. The complainant has been regularly paying the charges of the electricity bills and nothing was due against him. The officials of the Ops  used to check the meter/load of the complainant regularly and the same has always been found to be OK.
2. The complainant received memo No.828 dated 7.5.2012 from the Ops having alleged that the connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the Ops on 4.5.2012 and as per checking report they found the meter to be running slow by 66% and directed the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.2,71,284/-.The complainant has described the said demand raised by the Ops to be illegal, null and void, ultravires, unconstitutional and against the provisions of the Electricity Act,2003 and therefore, he brought a complaint on 15.6.2012 before this Forum for quashing the impugned demand. On the basis of the demand raised vide memo no.828 dated 7.5.2012 having been withdrawn by the Sr.Xen, the complainant had withdrawn his complaint.
3. Now after a lapse of two years, during which period no demand was raised and when the complainant had been making the payment of the electricity bills regularly, the complainant received memo no.1291 dated 20.10.2014 having raised the demand of  Rs.5,52,986/- against the demand already raised vide letter no.828 dated 7.5.2012 . It is alleged that the Ops are estopped  in taking up the matter, the issue having already been settled by the Forum. The complainant has challenged memo no.1291 dated 20.10.2014 to be illegal, ultravires, unconstitutional etc. and that the same is liable to be quashed on the grounds interalia, that during the said period the meter had been removed twice without having issued a notice to the complainant and new meter was installed. The old meter was taken by the officials  but the same was not packed in a cardboard box nor the same was affixed with a proper seal. The meter was taken in open condition. The officials were bound to get the meter checked from the M.E.Lab within a week as per the provisions contained under the regulations, which provides, “The meter on removal must be sent to the M.E.Lab within a maximum period of one week”; that the meter of the complainant was replaced with new one on 4.5.2012 but no copy of the meter change order was ever delivered to the complainant by the concerned official; that the memo dated 20.10.2014 is violative of the order passed by the Forum on 11.10.2012; that no opportunity of  filing any objections qua of any hearing was provided to the complainant before raising the demand and in that way the complainant has been condemned un heard and that no criteria for determining the demand has been mentioned in the impugned memo.
4. The act of the Ops in having raised the demand vide impugned memo being illegal has caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and therefore, he is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-.Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986( for short the Act) for quashing the demand raised vide the impugned memo; to award a compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and further to award  Rs.20,000/-towards the costs of the litigation.
5. On notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written version. The Ops have not denied the complainant being their consumer qua electricity connection bearing a/c No.P41GC410074W. It is averred that the premises of the complainant was checked by the Sr.Xen , Enforcement of the PSPCL, Patiala on 24.3.2012 alongwith other officials and they found meter bearing Sr.No.914678 installed there. After opening MCB and CTC, they observed at the meter terminal that the voltage with read phase (RO) reaches CT secondary and voltage on blue phase (BO) reaches CT Secondary of the voltage (RO) reaches . A diagramme was prepared by the checking officer depicting the existing position  found at the spot. The checking officer directed that the accuracy of the meter be got checked after getting the meter installed in the same manner as the meter at the spot was found. The MCB and CTC were sealed with the seals of AAE Taranjit Singh at the spot.
6. On 4.5.2012 Sr.Xen Enforcement-II  of the PSPCL again checked the premises since on 24.3.2012, during the previous checking, it was found that R&B voltage wires were inter changed and the accuracy of the meter could not be checked as the display of the meter was not working. Therefore, new meter bearing No.PBB19295 was installed and the connections were made in the manner as the same were found at the time of checking made on 24.3.2012 and then the accuracy of the meter was checked with dial mode and the meter was found 66% slow. Thereafter the accuracy of the meter was again checked after making the connections properly in a right way and the same was found within permissible limits. The checking officer directed that the account of the complainant be overhauled under the rules and regulations. A checking report was duly prepared at the spot and the same was signed by the officials as also by the consumer in token of the correctness thereof.
7. It is denied that the demand raised by the Ops is illegal, null and void, ultravires as alleged . It is also denied that the issue has already been settled by this Forum or that the demand is barred by time. Memo No.828 dated 7.5.2012 was withdrawn without prejudice to the rights of the Ops to serve a fresh rectified notice as per the checking made by the Enforcement on 24.3.2012 and 4.3.2012. The complaint was ordered to be filed as withdrawn as would appear from the copy of the order dated 11.10.2012. It is also averred by the Ops that the meter was not found defective but due to the wrong connections, three phase meter was not showing the only consumption and therefore , the meter was not required to be sent to the ME Lab and the same was checked at the spot with dial mode which is the  only requirement in case of wrong connections and to determine the actual consumption of the electricity consumed by the consumer. The said fault was found in the meter by the checking officer. The meter was changed vide MCO No. 100925 on 4.5.2012. The meter was installed in the premises of the consumer as per the checking report, which was signed by the consumer. Letter No.403 dated 23.6.2014 was sent in continuation of notice No.728 dated 7.5.2012 having revised the demand to Rs.5,52,996/-. Thereafter another letter No.1291 dated 20.10.2014 was sent to the complainant as the account of the complainant had been overhauled for the period 1/2009 to 4/2012 when the MCO was effected. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint , going against the Ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
8. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence, Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C20 and his counsel closed the evidence.
9. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Er.Deepak Goyal, AEE, Bahadurgarh Sub Division of the PSPCL, Ex.OP2, the sworn affidavit of Er.G.S.Gill alongwith documents Ex.OP1 to OP3 and closed their evidence.
10. The parties failed to file the written arguments.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone throughthe evidence on record.
11. Ex.C5 is the copy of enforcement checking report dated 24.03.2012 made by the Sr.Xen Enforcement on the request of SDO , Bahadurgarh in respect of the electricity connection bearing a/c no.GC-41/007400. Vide the checking , it was found that the voltage of red CT was mixed up with blue voltage and the voltage of blue CT was mixed up with red CTs. Similarly the voltage of Y CTs was mixed up with blue CTs. There was no display on the meter and therefore, accuracy could not be checked. After opening MCB and CTC, it was found at the meter terminal that at red CTs the blue CT voltage was mixing while at blue CTs voltage of red CTs was mixing.. In this regard a diagramme was made in the report Ex.C5 itself. The checking officer noted  that the accuracy be checked by himself. At the site MCB and CTC were got  sealed from AAE Mr.Taranjit Singh.
12. Ex.C12 is the checking report dated 4.5.2012 made by the Sr.Xen Enforcement-II of the PSPCL. It is noted in the report that on 24.3.2012 during the checking the wires of R&B voltage were interchanged and because of the display of the meter being defective , the accurancy of the meter could not be checked. Therefore, on that day i.e. 4.5.2012 a new meter was installed and having connected the same in the manner the old meter was found connected, the accuracy was tested at dial mode which was found to be slow by 66%.After correcting the connection, the accuracy was again checked but the same was found within permissible limit. It was instructed that account of the consumer be overhauled as per the instructions of the department.
13. Ex.C6 is memo No.828 dated 7.5.2012 written by Op no.2 to the complainant whereby he was informed that his connection and meter were checked by the Sr.Xen Enforcement,Patiala on 4.5.2012 and that the meter was found to be slow by 66% and therefore, vide the notice, Ex.C6, he was required to deposit a sum of Rs.2,71,284/- i.e. SOP 2,41,869 + ED Rs.29415/- within seven days.
14. The complainant had challenged the demand before this Forum having brought a complaint No.244 of 14.6.2012. On 11.10.2012, the counsel for the Ops had suffered the statement that as per the instructions of the Sr.Xen Memo no.882 dated 7.5.2012  had been withdrawn without prejudice to the rights of the Ops to serve fresh rectified notice as per the checking made by the  enforfcement on 24.3.2012 and 4.5.2012 and accordingly the complaint was withdrawn , as would appear from Ex.C1, the copy of the order dated 11.10.2012.
15. Again Op no.2 sent memo no.403 dated 23.6.2014 Ex.C3, to the complainant,  which said to be a revised notice with reference to notice no.828 dated 7.5.2012 and whereby a demand of Rs.5,52,996/- i.e. SOP Rs.4,89,595 +ED Rs.63401/- was raised to be deposited within seven days.
16. Ex.C2, is the memo No.1291 dated 20.10.2014 again written by Op no.2 to the complainant  having raised the demand of  Rs.5,52,996/- in continuation of the notices No.828 dated 7.5.2012 and No.403 dated 23.6.2014.
17. The provisions for testing of the defective meter are provided under Regulation 21.4 of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007(for short Regulations of 2007) as under:

“ 21.4 Defective Meters

(a)     The Licensee will have the right to test any meter and related apparatus installed at a consumer’s premises if there is a reasonable doubt about its accuracy and the consumer will provide the Licensee all necessary assistance in conducting the test. The consumer will have the right to be present during such testing.

(b)     (i)      A consumer may request the Licensee to test the meter/metering equipment installed in his premises. If he doubts its accuracy. The Licensee will undertake such site testing within seven days on payment of fee as specified in the Schedule of General Charges approved by the Commission.

          (ii)     If after testing, the meter is found to be defective then the fee deposited in accordance with Regulation 21.4(b)(i) will be refunded by adjustment in the electricity bills for the immediately succeeding months. In case the meter is found to be correct then such fee will be forfeited by the Licensee.

(c)      In case a consumer is not satisfied with the site testing of the meter installed in his premises or the meter cannot be tested by the Licensee at site then the meter will be removed and packed for testing in the laboratory of the Licensee and another duly tested meter will be installed at the premises  of such a consumer. In the event the Licensee or the consumer apprehends tampering of meter and/or its seals, then the packing containing the meter will be jointly sealed by the Licensee and the consumer. The seals will be broken and testing undertaken in the laboratory of the Licensee in the presence of the consumer.”

The checking report,Ex.OP2 dated 4.5.2012 is shown to be signed by the consumer.No objection was raised by the consumer at the site that he was not satisfied with the testing of the meter.It is no where the case of the Ops that the meter in question was removed from the site on 24.3.2012 or 4.5.2012 and rather it is the positive plea of the Ops that on 24.3.2012 the accuracy of the meter could not be checked as the display of the meter was defective and that the accuracy was checked on 4.5.2012 having installed a new meter and having connected the same in the manner as the old meter was found connected at the dial mode, which was found to be slow by 66% and again the accuracy was tested  by connecting the same in a proper way, when the accuracy of the meter was found to be within permissible limit. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the plea taken up by the complainant that the old meter was taken away by the officials  without having  contained the same in a cardboard box and without having put any seal thereon. It is provided under Regulation 21.4 of Regulations of 2007 that the Licensee will have the right to test any meter and related apparatus installed at a consumer’s premises if there is a reasonable doubt about its accuracy and the consumer will provide the Licensee all necessary assistance in conducting the test. The consumer will have the right to be present during such testing. It is further provided in regulation 21.4  b(i) that a consumer may request the Licensee to test the meter/metering equipment installed in his premises. If he doubts its accuracy,the Licensee will undertake such site testing within seven days on payment of fee as specified in the Schedule of General Charges approved by the Commission.Thus it would appear that there is a provision for checking of the meter/metering equipment at site and it is only when a consumer is not satisfied with the testing of the site testing of the meter installed in his premises or the meter cannot be tested by the Licensee at site that the meter will be removed and packed for testing in the laboratory of the Licensee.A perusal of the site checking reports Ex.OP1 dated 24.3.2012 and Ex.OP2 dated 4.5.2012,  does not go to suggest any non- satisfaction to have been expressed by the consumer in the testing of the meter/metering equipment

18. On 10.4.2015 the counsel for the Ops provided the Users Manual of the L&T containing  the connection diagramme in respect of 3 phase 4 wire with CT meter but the learned counsel for the complainant could not point out any flaw in the reports Ex.OP1 dated 24.3.2012 and Ex.OP2 dated 4.5.2012 with reference to connections shown in the diagramme of 3 phase 4 wires with CT meter.
19. Now the question arises as to whether the Ops could claim the overhaul of the account of the consumer for the period 1/2009 to 12/2011 vide memo no.403 dated 23.6.2014 ,Ex.C3 and again vide memo no.1291 dated 20.10.2014. Here, it may be noted that in the first memo no.828 dated 7.5.2012, OP no.2 had not disclosed the period for which the amount of Rs.2,71,284/- was demanded.
20. It is provided under Regulation 21.4 (g) (i), “If a meter on  testing is found to be beyond the limits of accuracy as prescribed in the Regulations notified by the Central Electricity Authority under Section 55 of the Act, the electricity charges for all categories of consumers will be computed in accordance with the said test results for a period of six months immediately preceding , the:

(a)     date of test in case the meter has been tested at site to the satisfaction of the consumer; or

(b)     date the defective meter is removed for testing in the laboratory of the Licensee where such testing is undertaken at the instance of the Licensee; or

(c)      date of receipt of request from the consumer for testing a meter in the laboratory of the Licensee”.

21. On the other hand Sh.P.S.Walia, the learned counsel for the Ops made a reference to Regulation 35.2 of the said Regulations, which provides : “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this Regulation shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied.”

             By making a reference to Regulation 35.2, it was submitted by Sh.Walia that the Ops are entitled to recover the amount for a period of two years by way of overhauling the account of the consumer.

22. We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that Regulation 35.2 can not be applied to the facts of the case because under Regulation 35.1 of the said regulations , it is provided that a consumer will effect full payment of the billed amount even if it is disputed failing which the Licensee may initiate action treating it as a case of non payment.

Provided that no action will be initiated if such a consumer deposits under protest  (a)   an amount equal to the sum claimed from him , or (b) the electricity charges for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him or preceding six months, which ever is less,pending disposal of any dispute between him and the Licensee.

Apparently regulation 35.2.  pertains to the amount recoverable on electricity bills whereas in our case the Ops had overhauled the account of the consumer on account of  the checking made by the Sr.Xen Enforcement having found the meter running slow by 66%, in respect of which specific provision for overhauling the account is made under Regulation 21.4 (g)(i).Therefore, we are of the considered view that the demand of Rs.5,52,996/- raised by the Op for the period 1/2009 to 12/2011 having overhauled the account on the basis of the checking report dated 4.5.2012 can not be upheld . We therefore, accept the complaint and quash the demand raised vide memo no.1291 dated 20.10.2014, The Ops are however, at liberty to raise the demand for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of testing  i.e.4.5.2012  by serving a separate notice for the same. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.2500/-.

 

Dated:22.04.2015

 

                             Neelam Gupta                         D.R.Arora

                             Member                                   President