DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
C. C. No : 355 of 2017
Date of Institution : 31.10.2017
Date of Decision : 20.03.2019
Megha Vig w/o Vipin Kumar s/o Vijay Kumar Vig, r/o Dhodha Chowk, Railway Road, Kotkapura.
...Complainant
Versus
- Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Kotkapura.
- Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Kotkapura.
- Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Kotkapura.
.........Ops
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Vipin Wadhawen, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.
ORDER
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
cc no.-355 of 2017
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc / Ops seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the bill dt 24.03.2017 for Rs 4,16,240/- charged as, Rs.1,50,000/-for mental agony suffered by complainant, Rs. 2 lacs for deficiency in services and Rs.22,000/-as litigation expenses to complainant.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic supply electric connection running in his premises and complainant is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is submitted that his average monthly consumption is between 800 to 1500 units and it never exceeds 2000 units. It is submitted that complainant received two bills in the months of August and September, 2016 with D Code and he paid both the bills and thereafter, OPs did not send him bills from October 2016 to February, 2017. Complainant visited the office of OPs and requested them to send him bill for the last five months, but OPs told him that there is some problem in system and due to which it is showing D Code and after dealing with the fault, bill would be supplied to him. Then, complainant received bill in March, 2017 for Rs.4,16,240/- and on it he gave application to OPs wherein requested them to check the meter and charge the bill as per previous consumption and also deposited Rs.450/- for challenging the meter. Complainant also deposited Rs.70,000/-with Ops as part payment against said bill . After that complainant received
cc no.-355 of 2017
memo no. 1384 dated 17.10.2017 vide which OPs mentioned that meter of complainant was checked in M E Lab and it was found OK and he was directed by OPs to deposit Rs.4,69,634/- , otherwise his connection would be disconnected. On receiving the same, complainant approached the OPs and requested them to withdraw the said memo and tried to convince that his average consumption is between 800 to 1500 units and consumption of 62301 units recorded by meter is totally wrong and moreover, said checking in ME Lab was done in the absence of complainant. it is further submitted that at the time of installing the new meter, complainant was unaware of the reading of new meter as it was not installed in his presence. Complainant made several requests to OPs that as meter was showing D Code, there might have some problem in said meter, but OPs paid no heed to hear his genuine requests, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Complainant has prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.
3 Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 31.10.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.
4 On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement wherein asserted that they have
cc no.-355 of 2017
constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before said committees and therefore, complaint in hand is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and is not their consumer. On merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that since August, 2016 meter of complainant was showing D Code. The bill of the complainant was issued on average basis. Meter of complainant was changed in March, 2017 and new meter was installed in its place. old meter of the complainant sent to M E Lab for checking, where it was found that reading of the meter was 1,16,392/- units whereas complainant had paid upto reading of 54091 units and found that complainant has not paid for 62,301 units. The charges for it comes to Rs.4,85,836/-out of this amount, complainant had already paid Rs.69,600/-and bills were sent on average basis. So, the balance amount comes to Rs.4,16,240/- which was demanded vide bill sent in March, 2017 and balance amount is still due towards the complainant. Complainant challenged the meter and deposited meter challenging fee and on his request, meter was sent to M E Lab, where after checking it was found to be okay and therefore memo in question for depositing the disputed amount was sent to complainant. Rs.4,63,616/- are due towards complainant and this amount is charged as per rules and regulations and complainant is liable to pay the same. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and
cc no.-355 of 2017
incorrect. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5 Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 19 and closed the same.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Harinder Singh, S D O as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-18 and then, closed the evidence.
7 We have heard the ld counsel for complainant and Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by the respective parties.
8 From the careful perusal of documents and evidence placed on record and after going through the arguments advanced by complainant counsel, it is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant is having electric connection issued by Ops and he is the consumer of OPs and has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received bills for August and September, 2016 with D Code and he paid both the bills. Then, OPs did not send bills from October 2016 to February, 2017. On request of complainant to send him bills, OPs told him that there is some problem in system due to which it is
cc no.-355 of 2017
showing D Code and after dealing with the fault, bill would be supplied to him. After that, complainant received bill issued in March, 2017 for Rs.4,16,240/- which was very excessive. Complainant through his application requested them to check the meter and also deposited Rs.450/- for challenging the meter. He deposited Rs.70,000/-with Ops as part payment against bill. Thereafter, he received memo no. 1384 dated 17.10.2017 vide which OPs demanded Rs.4,69,634/- on the ground that his meter was checked in M E Lab and it was found OK. Complainant approached OPs and requested them to withdraw the said memo and tried to convince that his average consumption is between 800 to 1500 units and consumption of 62301 units recorded by meter is totally wrong. Even no notice prior to checking in M E Lab was given to him and checking in M E Lab was done in the absence of complainant. Moreover, at the time of installing the new meter, he was unaware of the reading of new meter as it was not installed in his presence. Despite several requests by complainant to OPs that his meter was showing D Code and there might have some problem in said meter, but OPs paid no heed to his genuine requests and did not do anything needful, rather threatened him to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the amount in time. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused him harassment. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.
9 The grievance of complainant is that though his average consumption is between 800 to 1500 units and it
cc no.-355 of 2017
never exceeded 2000 units but OPs charged him huge amount on account of alleged M E Lab Checking which was not done in his presence. Despite his several requests, OPs did not do anything needful to withdraw the memo dated 17.10.2017 for Rs.4,69,634/-, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, plea taken by OPs is that on request of complainant, his meter was sent to M E Lab wherein on checking it was found ok. The bill of the complainant was issued on average basis. Meter of complainant was changed in March, 2017 and new meter was installed in its place. old meter of the complainant sent to M E Lab for checking, where it was found that reading of the meter was 1,16,392/- units whereas complainant had paid upto reading of 54091 units and found that complainant has not paid for 62,301 units. The charges for it comes to Rs.4,85,836/-out of this amount, complainant had already paid Rs.69,600/-and bills were sent on average basis. So, the balance amount comes to Rs.4,16,240/- which was demanded vide bill sent in March, 2017 and balance amount is still due towards the complainant. Amount in question was charged to complainant vide memo dated 17.10.2017. This amount is due towards complainant and he is liable to pay the same, but it is observed that OPs have failed to produce on record any documentary evidence to show that they gave any prior notice to complainant regarding alleged checking of his meter in M E Lab. As per rules, checking of meter in M E Lab was required to be done in the presence of complainant, but in present case, OPs did not issue any notice to complainant regarding checking of his meter in M E
cc no.-355 of 2017
Lab. Moreover, admittedly, the bills were issued to complainant with D Code which means that meter of the complainant was defective and due to this reason, the meter of the complainant was changed by OPs then how, they can claim that alleged reading recorded by meter is correct. Average consumption of complainant is between 800 to 1500 units and it is inpalpable that 62301 units can be consumed by him in such a short duration. There might have been some error, which OPs have themselves admitted that meter of complainant was showing status D code.
10 Ops have not placed on record any documentary evidence to show that meter of complainant was removed, packed and sealed in the presence and under the signatures of complainant or his representative and meter was never checked in M.E. Lab. in the presence of complainant or his representative. Thus, it is crystal clear that no procedure was adopted by Ops framed under the Rules and Regulations of PSPCL regarding removing, packing, selling and checking of defective electric meter in M.E.Lab. and thereafter, raising the demand arising out of said checking, if any.
11 As per Regulation No.55 Replacement of Meters/Metering Equipments : 55.1 Single Phase Electromechanical Meters : E.M Meters removed from the consumer premises on replacement with the electronic meters, shall be returned to M E Labs without any other formality and any other formality and M E Labs will not carry out any checking / testing of these meters except in case of
cc no.-355 of 2017
disputed meters. In case of disputed meters removed under code-G, M and R (glass broken, meter burnt and M E seals broken) and in cases where there is sufficient evidence of theft/tampering etc at the time of removal, the JE concerned shall record his observation on the MCO itself and such meters shall be packed and sealed in the presence of consumers for further checking in M E Labs in his presence.
Further as per Regulation No.21.4 (d): In case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the Licensee’s laboratory, the consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing atleast seven days in advance. The signatures of consumer, or his authorized representative, if present would be obtained on the Test Result Sheet and a copy thereof supplied to consumer.
12 Therefore, from the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion and it is made out that Ops have not followed the proper procedure as per their own regulations for making checking in M E Lab, which amounts to deficiency in service. We are fully convinced with the arguments advanced by complainant and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs cannot recover the impugned charges from the complainant on account of alleged checking which was not done in the presence of complainant. OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.4,69,634/- which is demanded by them from complainant on account of alleged checking vide memo no. 1384 dated 17.10.2017. Ops are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.75,000/- if deposited by
cc no.-355 of 2017
complainant in compliance of the order dated 31.10.2017 of this Forum. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 20.03.2019 (Param Pal Kaur) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Member President
