DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.146 of 2017

                                                 Date of institution:  21.02.2017                                                     Date of decision   :  18.04.2018

Kaka Ram son of Late Smt. Krishna Rani and Late Sh. Sadhu Ram, resident of House No.721, Village Mataur, Sector 70, Mohali (Punjab).

…….Complainant

Vs

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Phase-7, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Chairman/authorised representative.

2.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its SDO, Phase-1 Industrial Area, Mohali.

……..Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Shri Pankaj Sharma, counsel for the OPs.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant having domestic electricity meter bearing account No.3000229468 in the name of Smt. Krishna Rani (mother of complainant), filed complaint by claiming that in month of January, 2016 the above said meter caught fire, due to which it stood totally damaged. Information in that respect was given to officials of OPs, who promised for replacement of the said meter with a new one. Thereafter on 12.01.2016 the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.520/- with OPs as charges for replacement of old damaged electricity meter. Even then OPs started sending electricity bills on average basis, details of which mentioned below:

                In month of December, 2016 a new electricity meter was installed in the house of complainant. However, in January, 2017, OPs sent electricity bill of amount of Rs.47,210/- to complainant and thereafter he approached OPs with request to correct the bill. However, officials of OPs claimed that the old electricity meter was showing correct reading of consumed electricity. Complainant paid electricity charges demanded by Ops for period from 03.03.2016 to 04.11.2016. Complainant approached OPs many times with request to correct the electricity bill, but officials of OPs kept on postponing the matter and finally refused to correct the bill on 16.02.2017. Threat was administered to complainant that in case he approached their office again, then he will be thrown out of office. That caused lot of mental tension and harassment to complainant and even he suffered financial loss because of availing of leave from labour work. Damages of Rs.30,000/- in lump sum for mental harassment and tension claimed alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Even direction sought to OPs to correct the wrong electricity bill sent by them to complainant. Direction also sought to OPs for adjusting the amounts already received from complainant during period from January, 2016 to November, 2016.

2.             OPs filed reply by pleading as if this Forum has no jurisdiction and complaint being false and frivolous merits dismissal. It is further claimed that alleged deficiency in service on part of OPs has been rectified by OPs, but that fact has been concealed by complainant. It is claimed that complainant is liable to pay consumption charges of actual consumed 7430 units, as per reading recorded on 21.04.2017. The old meter reading was of 7208 units, when the damaged meter was sent to ME Lab., but the last reading of the burnt meter was recorded as 14078 units. Consumption of new meter was even recorded as 222 units. Electricity meter in question admittedly was in the name of Smt. Krishna Rani, who admittedly had expired. That Krishna Rani was mother of complainant. However, complainant never got updated the documents of his ownership after death of his mother. Admittedly the burnt electricity meter of complainant was replaced with new meter No.100005517030. Replacement of the burnt meter took place on request of complainant. New meter was installed with reading of one and thereafter complainant had been depositing the bills on average reading basis because of ‘D’ Code upto 24.12.2016. Complainant never objected to bills issued on average reading basis and nor he ever approached OPs for rectification of bills after replacement of burnt meter. In bill dated 21.04.2017 account of complainant was overhauled for period January 2016 to April 2017. On such overhauling the consumption was found of 7430 units in all. That was taken into consideration while issuing the bill of amount of Rs.45,950/- as on 21.04.2017. Other averments of the complaint denied.

3.             Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith receipt Ex.C-1 and thereafter closed evidence.  Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Shri H.S. Oberoi, Addl. Superintending Engineer alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and thereafter closed evidence.

4.             Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties.   Oral arguments heard and records gone through.

5.             From the pleadings of the parties and the submitted affidavits of complainant and of Addl. Superintending Engineer of OPs, it is made out that the old electricity connection was in the name of Smt. Krishna Rani, mother of complainant, who had expired, but that meter was challenged because of same being burnt. Job order for device replacement i.e. meter replacement dated 05.02.2016 is produced on record as Ex.OP-2. In Ex.OP-2 mention made regarding burnt meter and as such virtually replacement of damaged meter with new one took place on 05.02.2016.

6.             Ex.OP-3 is a report of submitted 10 old burnt meters by OPs with M.E. Lab. In one of the entries highlighted with yellow marker, it is mentioned as if the meter of complainant was dead and the bills prepared on average basis. Reading of the meter is mentioned as 14078 units in Ex.OP-3. It is claimed by complainant that before sending of this meter to M.E. Lab, no notice was sent to him and nor the meter was sealed in his presence and nor copy of report was supplied to him. After going through Regulation 21.3.6 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Reg.97 dated November 5, 2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazettee (Extra) dated November 5, 2014 (hereinafter referred as ‘Supply Code’ for the sake of brevity), it is made out that distribution licensee shall have the right to test any consumer meter or related equipment  either at the site or in the laboratory, if there is a reasonable doubt about its accuracy. However, as per this Regulation 21.3.6 (a), the consumer will have right to be present during such testing. Moreover, as per this Regulation itself, copy of the test result indicating the accuracy of the meter shall be provided to the consumer. As per Regulation 21.3.6 (b) (ibid), even a consumer may request the distribution licensee to test the meter, if he doubts about its accuracy.  As per Regulation 21.3.6 (c) of the above said Regulations, if after testing the meter, the same is found to be inaccurate, then the fee deposited by consumer will be refunded to him by way of adjustment in the electricity bills for the immediately succeeding month. As per Regulation 21.3.6 (e) of above said Regulations, in case  testing of the removed meter from the consumer premises in the licensee’s laboratory to take place, then consumer will be informed of the proposed date of testing through a notice of atleast 3 days in advance. In such case the seals will be removed/broken in the presence of consumer or his/her authorised representative and testing will be undertaken in the laboratory within 15 days from the date of removal of the meter from consumer’s premises. Such testing in M.E. Lab. can take place in absence of a consumer or his representative, if he/she gives written consent for such test in his absence. Such consent from complainant is never shown to be obtained by OPs. Even notice of date of testing of meter in the laboratory never shown to be sent to complainant and as such virtually ME Lab. report obtained by OPs regarding burnt meter at the back of complainant. So violation of Regulation 21.3.6 is committed by OPs, which is deficiency in service on part of OPs.

7.             Regulation 21.4.1 of above said Regulations provides that in case the consumer’s meter becomes defective or dead slow or gets burnt, then a new meter will be installed in the prescribed time. In such case investigation report regarding reasons for damage to meter must be supplied to consumer within 30 days. Such investigation report is not shown to be prepared by OPs in this case. Even copy of such investigation report never claimed to be sent to complainant, albeit meter in question claimed to be burnt. So violation of Regulation 21.4.1 of Supply Code is also committed by OPs.

8.             In view of violation of above said Regulations, benefit of entries in register Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-3 cannot be gained by OPs, even if they are able to prove about the replacement of burnt meter with new one on 05.02.2016 through Ex.OP-2.

9.             It is claimed that OPs after overhauling of accounts of complainant on average basis issued bill Ex.OP-5 for amount of Rs.49,850/- to complainant. After going through this bill Ex.OP-5, it is made out that sanctioned load for domestic connection in question is 0.860 KW. With this sanctioned load of 0.860 KW, complainant certainly cannot consume more electricity than that the one required for lightening 10 bulbs or 4-5 fans. Bill Ex.OP-5 pertains to period from 23.06.2017 to 24.08.2017. This bill Ex.OP-5 shows as if the arrears of amount of Rs.47,467/- claimed from complainant for the current financial year. However, arrears of Rs.2,268/- for the previous financial year claimed through this bill Ex.OP-5 from complainant. No separate bill than that of Ex.OP-5 shown to be issued to complainant for disclosing him the split of amounts chargeable from him as arrears. Regulation 21.5.2 of Supply Code provides that account of a consumer shall be overhauled/billed for the period the meter remained defective/dead stop and in case of burnt/stolen meter for the period of direct supply subject to maximum period of six months on the basis of procedure laid in Clause (a) to (e) of Regulation 21.5.2. That procedure provides for calculation of amount for the period during which meter remained burnt on the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year. However, in case such data of previous year is not available, then average monthly consumption of previous six months during which the meter was functional shall be adopted for overvaulting of accounts. If none of the data mentioned in Clause (a) and (b) referred above available, then average of consumption for the period, the meter worked correctly during the last six months shall be taken for overhauling account of the consumer. Regulation 21.5.3 of above said Regulations further provide that any evidence produced by consumer about the conditions of working and/or occupancy of the concerned premises during the period, which might have a bearing on consumption of electricity consumed, shall be taken into consideration by distribution licensee. However, overhauling of the bill for the period for which meter remained dead stop is not shown to be done as per Clause (a) to (a) of Regulation 21.5.2 because material in that respect has not been produced and as such issue of bill Ex.OP-5 is against rules and regulations referred above. If at all the OPs to overhaul the accounts, then it must follow rules and regulations referred above for doing so. That overhauling of the bills must take into consideration the amounts of electricity consumption charges paid by complainant.

10.            Regulation 30.1.1 of the Supply Code further provides that a consumer bill will disclose the period of bill consisting of the date when the meter was dead, the date of issue of bill, due date for payment and additional amount payable in case payment is delayed. Further Regulation 30.1.2 of the Supply Code provides

that the bill cum notice for arrear in the case of under assessment or the charges levied as a result of checking etc. shall be initially tendered separately and shall not be clubbed with the current electricity bill. Further as per this Regulation 30.1.2, the arrear bill cum notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of arrears alongwith calculated details of such arrears. In case arrears are not cleared by consumer, then such arrears shall be indicated separately in the subsequent electricity bills. However, in case the arrear bill is included in the current energy bill at the first instance, then distribution licensee shall not be entitled to take any punitive action against the consumer for nonpayment of such arrear amount alongwith the current energy bill. Ex.OP-5 is the bill issued straightway for specifying the recoverable arrears of previous year as well as of current financial year. No separate bill of arrears shown to be sent to complainant and as such virtually amount of arrears clubbed in the current bill Ex.OP-5. So this bill certainly is issued in violation of Regulation 30.1.2 of Supply Code Regulations. Bill Ex.OP-5 is a bill issued for charging clubbed amounts of current electricity charges and the previous arrears. This bill does not indicate the nature and period of arrears alongwith calculations and as such recovery of arrears of this bill is not permissible in view of Regulation 30.1.2 of Supply Code. So the demand of Rs.47,210/- alleged arrears amount liable to be quashed, but OPs will have right to assess the payable amount as per rules and regulations referred above.

11.            Counsel for OPs has placed reliance on Ex.OP-4 for arguing that D code of the meter in question remained during period from 20.02.2016 to 19.12.2016 and that fact is borne from contents of Ex.OP-4 itself.  How the amounts of arrears of consumption charges calculated during the period from 20.02.2016 to 19.12.2016, qua that no material produced on record. Same may be because of the fact that arrears not calculated as per Supply Code Rules and Regulations on average basis, by taking into consideration the consumption of corresponding period. So contents of Ex.OP-4 itself establishes as if reading of units shown in Ex.OP-4 during period from 20.02.2016 to 19.12.2016 is not correct. If the meter was dead during this period, then due calculation on average basis must have been done, but same is not done and as such the amount of Rs.47,210/- as arrears virtually claimed against rules and regulations in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. So demand of arrears of Rs.47,210/- put forth through bill for the period from 23.10.2016 to 13.12.2016 is liable to be quashed. However, OPs must be given liberty to assess the payable amount for period from 20.02.2016 to 19.12.2016 as per rules and regulations mentioned above because the meter remained under ‘D’ Code during this period. Opportunity of hearing must be given to complainant before passing any final order of assessment of due amount. Even complainant must be given right to produce evidence as per requirement of Regulation 21.5.3 of Supply Code Regulations. Only after passing of final order of assessment of due amounts, statement will be drawn by OPs of the due arrears and the amounts already paid by complainant and balance left out. Copy of this due drawn statement must be supplied by OPs to complainant within 15 days of final assessment. Exercise of assessing the due amount must be carried out by OPs within period of 40 days from date of receipt of copy of order. As due to whimsical and arbitrary demand of arrears of Rs.47,210/- the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment and  even stood dragged to this litigation, and as such he is entitled for compensation for both these counts.

12.            As a sequel of above discussion, demand of arrears of amount of Rs.47,210/- put forth through bill for the period from 23.10.2016 to 13.12.2016 is quashed, but with the observation that OPs will have right to assess the payable amount for the period from 20.02.2016 to 19.12.2016 as per rules and regulations mentioned in this order. Opportunity of hearing to complainant will be afforded by OPs before passing any final order of assessment of due amount and complainant will have right to produce evidence also as per Regulation 21.5.3 of Supply Code Regulations of 2007. After passing of final order of assessment of the due amounts, a statement will be drawn of the due amounts, the amounts already paid by complainant and balance left out. Copy of this due drawn statement will also be supplied by OPs to complainant with 15 days of final assessment. Exercise of assessing the due amount will be done by OPs within period of 40 days from date of receipt of copy of the order. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- more allowed        in favour of complainant and against the OPs. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of order by OP. certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be  indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

April 18, 2018.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

                                                                   (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)                                                                 Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member