Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/312

Meenu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pspcl - Opp.Party(s)

Mayank Malhitra

06 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC14/312 of 5.11.2014

                                      Decided on: 6.4.2015

 

 

Meenu aged about 46 years wife of Shri Vijay Kumar resident of 66-A,New Officers Colony,Near Sai Vihar, Patiala.       

 

                                                                 Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. The Sr.Executive Engineer/West Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala.

 

                                                                 Ops

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Mayank Malhotra, Advocate

For Ops:                 Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate with Sh.Jatinder Singh, AEE 

                                 of the East Commercial Sub Division, PSPCL, Patiala.     

 

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that she is the holder of the domestic electricity connection bearing a/c No.P12MF012227A and now the same is said to be 3000036517 having a sanctioned load of 10.980KW.She has been paying the charges of the electricity as per the bills supplied to her and the status of the meter has always remained OK. The meter is installed on a pole outside the residential premises of the complainant since 2012.
2. On 3.11.2014, the complainant received an electricity bill for the period 29.9.2014 to 28.10.2014 i.e. for 29 days for a sum of Rs.1,18,790/-.It is alleged that the bill shows the consumption of only 17days, which has been described by the complainant to be illegal, null and void, against the principles of natural justice, rules and regulations etc. as nothing was outstanding against the complainant. The bill pertained to the consumption of 15848 units, which is practically not possible even if the entire load is run for 24 hours during the period of 17 days.
3. After the receipt of the bill in question, the complainant approached  op no.2 and it was transpired that the officials of the ops had checked the connection of the complainant on 16.10.2014 and changed the old meter with new meter No.10337899. She was not supplied with any checking report but she was informed that the officials of the ops had obtained the signatures of the son of the complainant , who is minor being aged 17 years old. It was further informed that since the meter was found in burnt condition, it was sent to the ME Lab but she has never been called for any checking of the meter in the ME Lab.
4. It is further averred that no notice before the issuance of the impugned bill had been served upon the complainant. The complainant tried to challenge the meter by depositing the requisite fee but the officials in the office of Op no.2 flatly refused to accept the request of the complainant for the checking of the meter. It is averred by the complainant that under regulation 21.2 ( c ) of the Electricity Supply Code & Related Matters Regulations 2007, it is provided that in case where the meter/metering equipment is installed by the licencee outside the premises of the consumer, the consumer will not be responsible for the protection of the meter for theft or damage. She is ready to deposit the   energy charges for the period of 29 days but she felt harassed on account of the complainant having been served with the impugned bill. Therefore, she is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.30000/- on account of the harassment. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to quash the bill dated 28.10.2014; to restrain the Ops from disconnecting the supply to the electricity connection of the complainant and from charging the amount of the bill i.e. Rs.1,18,790/- and to award her Rs.30000/- by way of  compensation on account of the harassment and humiliation suffered by her as also the costs of the complaint.
5. On notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written version. It is admitted by the Ops that the complainant is holder of the electricity connection bearing a/c No.P12MF12227A , the new number of the same being 3000036517 with  a sanctioned load of 10.980KW. She has been charged vide the impugned bill as per the reading recorded by the meter. The reading does not pertain to a period of 17 days as is being made out by the complainant since it has carried forward reading of the meter which was being concealed with a malafide intention by the complainant in collusion with the Meter Reader Mr.Harinder Singh, which fact was revealed at the time of the replacement of the meter, reported to have burnt as per intimation/request made by the complainant with the Ops on 13.10.2014 with the complaint centre, the copy of the extract of the complaint register dated 13.10.2014 having been produced alongwith the written version. The supply was restored temporarily vide DSO No.65641 dated 13.10.2014.
6. It is further averred that on receipt of the intimation regarding the electricity meter in question having got burnt, a checking was made at the site by  Er.Ranjit Singh, AAE and Er.Harminder Singh, Meter Inspector  in the presence of the complainant/consumer or her representative vide checking report No.4047 dated 16.10.2014 and the checking team found, “That the meter appears to have been burnt intentionally because the block and cable of the meter were alright and an attempt was made to burn reading counter from its front side so as to conceal the reading. The meter be replaced immediately and necessary action be taken. Note: The bill of the consumer has been issued for 95656 units on 29.9.2014 whereas today i.e. on 16.10.2014 the reading of the meter at site is 111504.Therefore, it appears that an attempt has been made to wipe out the consumption of 15848 units. Besides the meter in question two more meters have been installed on the pole, the detail of which is as under…………….”
7. It is further averred that the complainant/consumer or her representative had signed the checking report and the copy of the same was also handed over to the complainant/consumer or her representative. Erroneously and inadvertently meter number has been mentioned as 20508619 in the electricity bill instead of No.00656 actually installed at the site which stands corrected. The meter was ordered to be replaced vide job order No.13548/19 and the same was replaced on 16.10.2014 in the presence of the complainant or her representative and the same was duly packed and sealed in a cardboard box. The complainant/consumer or her representative signed the job order. The reading of the meter removed was found to be 111504 units whereas the billing had been made as on 30.9.2014 up to 95656 units. On further investigation, it was revealed that the complainant in collusion with the Meter Reader Mr.Harinder Singh had been manipulating electricity bills showing the less reading than actual consumption as recorded by the meter and subsequently she tried to burn the meter to conceal the real facts  regarding the consumption in collusion with the Meter Reader Mr.Harinder Singh. The necessary disciplinary action has already been initiated by the Ops against said Harinder Singh, Meter Reader vide letter 1563/64 dated 16.10.2014 and No.1606 dated 28.10.2014 and he has been served with the charge sheet vide memo no.6572 dated 20.11.2014. Therefore, the electricity bill in question is liable to be paid by the complainant.
8. It is also the plea taken up by the Ops that the complainant has not challenged the meter in question nor she submitted any application to challenge the same and even she failed to deposit the requisite meter challenge fee.The averments made in this regard in the complaint are after thought. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Ops, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9. In support of her complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA her sworn affidavit  alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed her evidence.
10. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Er.Jatinder Singh Kanda AEE of East Commercial Sub Division of the PSPCL, Patiala, Ex.OPB, the sworn affidavit of Er.Ranjit Singh, AAE of East Commercial Sub Division of the PSPCL alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP11 and the evidence of the Ops was closed by  order of the Forum.
11. The parties failed to file the written arguments.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
12. Ex.C1 is the bill dated 28.10.2014 for the period 29.9.2014 to 28.10.2014 for Rs.1,18,790/- for the period of 29 days showing the old reading of meter No.10337899 as 95656 and new reading as 111504, thus, showing the consumption of 15848 units. It is the plea taken up by the complainant that even if, the sanctioned load of the electricity connection is run for 24 hours a day, the consumption of 15848 units during the period of the bill is practically impossible. On the other hand, it is the plea taken up by the ops that the reading recorded in the bill dated 28.10.2014 is not the actual reading recorded by the meter. It was a carried forward reading of the meter concealed by the consumer in collusion with the Meter Reader Harinder Singh, a fact revealed at the time of the replacement of the burnt meter, in respect of which intimation was lodged by the complainant on 13.10.2014 with the concerned complaint centre, copy of the extract of the register in this regard being Ex.OP3 and when the supply was restored temporarily vide DSO no.65641 dated 13.10.2014. It is further the plea taken up by the op that on receipt of the said intimation about the meter in question having got burnt, the same was checked at site by a team  consisting of Er.Ranjit Singh,AEE and Er.Harminder Singh,Meter Inspector vide checking report No.4097 dated 16.10.2014, the copy of the same being Ex.C7.
13. In the checking report,Ex.C7, serial number of the meter has been noted as 00656 but it is recorded in the report that in the bill the meter number has been printed as 20508619, which does not tally with the meter installed at the site. It is really surprising to note as to what necessitated the checking team to consult the bill because the serial number of the meter was very much readable as has been observed by us today with the help of the meter produced before us. Therefore, it is intriguing to note as to why in the bill, Ex.C2 dated 29.9.2014 for the period 2.8.2014 to 29.9.2014 the meter number has been noted as 20508619 although the said meter had been removed on 29.5.2006 vide miscellaneous job order Ex.OP9 dated 13.4.2006 and when new meter No.00656 was installed. The Ops are thus, obliged to enquire during the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against the Meter Reader Harinder Singh as to how meter No.20508619 came to be recorded in the bill,Ex.C2 dated 29.9.2014 for the period 2.8.2014 to 29.9.2014 and also as to whether said meter number was being recorded in the electricity bills being issued even prior to 29.9.2014, if so, why, although the said meter had been removed vide miscellaneous job order,Ex.OP9 dated 13.4.2006 on 29.5.2006  . A note has been given in the report,Ex.C7 that the meter appeared to have been burnt intentionally because the block and cable of the meter appeared intact and an attempt appeared to have been made from the front side of the reading counter to burn the same so that the actual consumption may be concealed.
14. It is provided under regulation 73.1.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations that on receipt of a report regarding a meter becoming dead stop or burnt, it should be promptly replaced and necessary inquires conducted. The meter alongwith  the report should be forwarded to ME Lab for further action. Regulation 73.1.2  further provides,  as regards charging the consumer for the period the meter remained inoperative, average consumption of last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption as under and higher of the two shall be charged on provisional basis:

                                                                   Consumption per cycle

                                                          DS consumers      NRS consumers

1.       Upto 2 KW load                      100units/KW        100units/KW

2.       Exceeding 2KW and                200+60units/KW    200+60units/KW

upto 5KW                               of load in excess of     of load in excess of

                                                  2 KW                         2 KW

3.       Load exceeding 5KW            380+40units/KW        760+40units/KW

                                                        of load in excess        of load in excess

                                                       of 5KW                                of 5KW.

Regulation 73.1.2.1 further provides that, “ consumption pattern of the consumer shall be watched for a further period of two years after installation of correct meter and if the average consumption exceeds the consumption already charged, the provisional bill shall be revised on the basis of future consumption so worked out for a maximum period of six months preceding the date of checking”.

15. It was submitted by Sh.Mayank Malhotra, the learned counsel for the complainant that the Ops have given good-by  to the Regulations 73.1.1., 73.1.2 and 73.1.2.1 and without having obtained any report from the ME Lab burdened the complainant with the impugned bill without caring to see that the consumption of 15848 units could not, in any way, be made practically and now they have come forward with the plea of the complainant having colluded with the Meter Reader Mr.Harinder Singh, who used to show less reading of the meter and the same was carried forward and ultimately, in order to remove the evidence of actual reading, the complainant got the meter burnt. It was submitted by Sh.Malhotra, that the allegations made by the Ops in this regard are concocted ones because they have not shown as to on what basis the Ops could come to such a conclusion,  particularly when it is the plea taken up by the Ops that said  Meter Reader Mr.Harinder Singh has been charge sheeted vide letter No.1563/64 dated 16.10.2014 and 1606 dated 28.10.2014 vide memo No.6572 dated 20.11.2014 and that surprisingly a period of more than four months having elapsed no enquiry report has been placed on file. Ex.OP8 is the memo No.6572 dated 20.11.2014 , whereby the Jr.Meter Reader Mr.Harinder Singh was served with the memorandum of article of charges in which it is stated that he had made a reading of the electric connection bearing account No.3000036517 on 29.9.2014 at 95656 units, in respect of which the bill had been issued to the consumer but on 16.10.2014 Er.Ranjit Singh AEE and Meter Inspector had made a checking of the consumer , when the reading was found to be 111504. Thus, during a gap of 15-16 days, there was a difference of 15848 units. Thereafter he (Harinder Singh) in order to wipe out the reading had burnt the meter of the consumer but even then the block and reading dial of the meter as also the cable were intact.
16. Whatever grounds  may have been taken up by the ops in serving memorandum of articles of charges upon their delinquent official, in the matter of fastening liability upon the consumer, we are governed by regulations 73.1.1, 73.1.2 and 73.1.2.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations.
17. It is the plea taken up by the ops in their written version that after the checking of the meter made by Er.Ranjit Singh,AAE and Er.Harminder Singh , Meter Inspector on 16.10.2014, the meter was ordered to be replaced on 16.10.2014 in the presence of the complainant or her representative and the same was duly sealed and packed in a cardboard box in the presence of the complainant/consumer or her representative. Nowhere, it is the plea taken up by the ops that the meter was ever sent to the ME Lab having sent any intimation to the complainant to come present on a particular date in connection with the checking of the meter Nevertheless, the ops have produced in evidence Ex.OP6, the copy of letter No.1890 dated 27.11.2014 to have been written by AAE East Commercial Sub Division, PSPCL, Patiala to the complainant , whereby she was informed that the meter which had been packed, will be taken to ME Lab on 14.8.22011 at 11.30 and that she should come present on the said date at ME Sub Division near 66 KV grid, Rajpura Colony, so that the meter could be checked in her presence. In case she failed to appear on the said date and time, she will be responsible for the results regarding the meter. The said letter does not state with regard to the meter to be got checked from the ME Lab. Even the said letter Ex.OP6 is reported to have been refused to be accepted by the consumer but no affidavit of the official who made a report of the refusal is produced in evidence.
18. Instead of complying with the regulation 73.1.1 by way of getting the meter checked from the M.E.Lab immediately after the removal of the same and charging the consumer under regulation 73.1.2, the ops moved an application during the pendency of the complaint on 23.1.2015 so as to give a direction to the complainant to get the meter in question checked from the M.E.Lab and which application of the Ops was disposed of by us vide detailed order dated 23.2.2015 that the guidelines issued under Electricity Supply Regulations have to be complied with by the concerned official and for which no orders need to be obtained from the Forum/Court and therefore, it was observed by us that no direction could be given to the complainant to get the meter checked from the M.E.Lab. It was a duty to be discharged by the Ops under the aforesaid regulation and that the Ops were at liberty to comply with the same at their own level. Despite the said observations made by the Forum, the ops failed to get the meter checked from the ME Lab. The complaint was posted for written arguments for 12.3.2015. The written arguments having not been filed on the said date, the same was posted for oral arguments for 25.3.2015.During the course of arguments, it was transpired that it was very much necessary to see the meter in question as the ops have failed to get any report from the M.E.Lab. Accordingly a direction was given to the Ops to produce the meter in question.
19. Today Sh.Jatinder Singh, AEE.East Commercial Sub Division, PSPCL, Patiala produced electricity meter no.00656 contained in a plastic polythene affixed with a paper seal wrapped with cello tape throughout. The paper seal was affixed in such a way that the packet could be opened without tearing the paper seal. In this regard, we recorded the statement of Sh.Jatinder Singh AEE, who stated that the meter is not contained in a cardboard box and is not duly sealed  as mentioned in the written version. The packet was opened in the Forum in the presence of the counsel for the parties as also AEE Jatinder Singh. The meter was found badly burnt from front side in the manner that the covering lid of the plastic has badly been melted and all the digits were not readable. The only digits readable were 04 in one line and 222615 at the bottom of the dial. The blinking lighting system of the digits had completely been burnt. The plate bearing the particulars of the meter bore serial no.00656. The internal wiring system attached with the chip has got jammed because of the melting of the plastic matter. The said observations have been recorded in the statement of Sh.Jatinder Singh, AEE, recorded separately in file.
20. Once the ops had come to know about the meter installed at the site having badly been burnt, we fail to understand as to why the ops had sit silent and not complied with the regulations 73.1.1, 73.1.2 and 73.1.2.1. The Ops may conduct any enquiry against any official concerned in the matter of taking reading of the meter and pass any order against him under the rules but they could not shirk their responsibility in the matter of complying with the regulations 73.1.1, 73.1.2 and 73.1.2.1, which are obligatory.
21. We fail to understand as to how AEE Ranjit Singh and JE.Harminder Singh in their checking report Ex.OP7 could record the meter reading  as 111504 because we noted the digits in one line as 04 and in the bottom line of the dial as 222615 ,when the meter was produced before us today. No reliance could be placed upon the burnt meter by the Ops in fastening the liability upon the consumer because a specific procedure for determining the liability of a consumer has been provided under Regulations 73.1.1, 73.1.2 and 73.1.2.1. We are therefore, of the considered view that the raising of the demand for the consumption of 15848 units by the ops vide the impugned bill,Ex.C1 dated 28.10.2014 on the basis of the reading of the burnt meter is not warranted under the Electricity Supply Regulations and therefore, the said demand has got to be quashed and the same is quashed accordingly. The Ops may work out the liability of the complainant on the basis of regulation 73.1.2  for the period of the impugned bill.
22. In case the Ops come to a finding on the basis of some evidence that the complainant indulged in getting the reading of the meter recorded less, than the actual consumption in collusion with the Meter Reader, they may take the action against the Meter Reader as also the consumer provided there are the provisions contained in this regard under the Electricity Supply Regulations and the complainant is supplied with the same documentary evidence for the same and may  proceed to recover the amount on the basis of the said document. The Ops may raise the bill for the consumption of the electricity by the complainant for the period 29.9.2014 to 28.10.2014 on the basis of energy consumed of last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year and raise the bill either separately or containing the same in the current bill giving the detail of the period as also the reference of the order in hand. The amount of Rs.15000/- deposited by the complainant in compliance with the order of the Forum dated 7.11.2014 may be adjusted against the fresh demand to be raised for the period 29.9.2014 to 28.10.2014 .The complaint is accepted accordingly  with costs assessed at Rs.3500/-.

Pronounced

Dated:6.4.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                  Neelam Gupta                         D.R.Arora

          Member               Member                                   President