Punjab

Sangrur

CC/595/2015

Monika Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri R.K.Goyal

18 Mar 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  595

                                                Instituted on:    10.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       18.03.2016

 

 

Monika Bansal aged 42 years wife of Ashok Bansal son of Subash Chand, resident of Opposite B.D.O. Office, Patiala Road, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, City Sub Division, Sunam, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri R.K.Goyal, Advocate.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Monika Bansal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is running a petrol pump under the name and style of M/s. Megha Petromall at village Bishanpura, Patiala Road, Sunam and to run the same she has obtained an electric connection bearing account number S-56GT560004L for 15.75 KW load.  The complainant is the sole proprietor of the business and she has been running the petrol pump to earn livelihood with the assistance of her husband. It is further averred that the electricity meter has been installed outside the premises and monthly reading is recorded by the Ops and bills are accordingly paid.  The complainant is aggrieved on receipt of the bill number 33 dated 27.6.2015 for Rs.45,430/- wherein the consumption has been shown to be 2265 units only for the month of 1.6.2015 to 27.6.2015, which amount comes to Rs.17,384/-, but the OPs have wrongly added an amount of Rs.28.038/- in the said bill and after receipt of the bill, the complainant approached OP number 2, who told that the said charges are relating to the previous year, as nothing was due towards the complainant.  It is further stated that the Ops never demanded such an amount of Rs.28038/- from the complainant, which is said to be wrong and illegal.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.28038/- raised against the complainant vide bill dated 27.6.2015 by the OPs and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. Any deficiency in service is denied.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the connection in question for her petrol pump. It is stated that the complainant is using the connection for commercial purpose.  It is stated further that the electricity meter became defective as per the key inspection report and the same was changed by the OPs vide MCO number 73/105216 dated 3.7.2014 and the same was effected on 11.7.2014 and the old meter was packed and sealed in the card board box as per rules and thereafter the old meter was sent to the ME laboratory for checking and after receiving the report from the ME laboratory, the account of the complainant was overhauled for the months of July 2014 and August, 2014.  As such, the complainant was found having used the electricity for the said two months i.e. 5001 units in the month of July, 2014 and 1705 units in August, 2014, but the complainant deposited the consumption units amounting to 1544 units out of 5001 units and the amount of 3457 units for the said month is still due and in the same manner, the complainant deposited the consumption charges for units amounting to 1494 units out of 1705 units and the amount of 211 units is still due. It is further stated that the said amount has been rightly charged from the complainant as aforesaid.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 are the copies of bills and receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of MCO, Ex. OP/3 copy of half margin note, Ex.OP-4 to Ex.OP-7 copies of ledger and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             First of all, the Ops have disputed that the connection in question is being used for running the petrol pump and as such it is a commercial dispute i.e. the complainant has been using the electricity connection in order to earn huge profits, as such it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer.  But, a bare perusal of the complaint as well as affidavit of the complainant clearly reveals that the petrol pump is being run by the complainant with the help of her husband Shri Ashok Bansal and the complainant is the sole proprietor of the petrol pump. Moreover, the Ops have not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the complainant has engaged any employees or labour to run the petrol pump.  As such, we find that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops and can very much maintain her complaint before this Forum.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by getting installed the electricity connection bearing account number S-56GT560004L in order to run the petrol pump in question. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the demand of Rs.28038/- raised by the OPs in the bill dated 27.6.2015 is without any basis and the electricity to such an extent was never consumed by the complainant. It is further contended by the Ops that the complainant never used the electricity to such an extent and that the demand of Rs.28038/- is said to be wrong and illegal and without any basis.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that though the electricity meter of the complainant was replaced by the OPs, but the same was never packed and sealed in a card board box nor the same was checked in the ME laboratory in the presence of the complainant or his representative nor the complainant was ever called for at the time of checking the electricity meter in question.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the demand of Rs.28038/- has been rightly raised vide bill dated 27.6.2015, as according to the key inception report the meter was changed by the Ops vide MCO number 73/105216 dated 3.7.2014 and the same was effected on 11.7.2014 and the old meter was packed and sealed in the card board box as per the rules and thereafter the same was checked in the ME laboratory and as per the report of the ME laboratory, the demand for Rs.28038/- has rightly been charged as the account was over hauled by the Ops for the months of July, 2014 and August, 2014. As such, the demand raised by the OPs is said to be legal one.

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the copies of the electricity bills, which are on record as Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8, but in no where in the old bills the Ops have shown the alleged demand of Rs.28038/-,  whereas in the present case, the OPs have shown the unbilled units to the tune of 3668 units, which are unacceptable by us as it is not shown by the Ops that after removal of the old meter, the complainant was ever called for in the ME laboratory at the time of checking the electricity meter in question.   We have also perused the copy of meter change order Ex.OP-2, but it nowhere contains the signatures of the complainant or her representative to show that the meter in question was changed in her presence. Further no copy of the ME laboratory report has been produced by the Ops to show that the electricity meter in question was checked or the complainant ever called to come present in the ME laboratory for  checking of the meter in her presence.    It is worth mentioning here that as per Sales Regulation number 71.2.2, the removed meters should be sent to the ME laboratory promptly after removal, but in no case it should be delayed beyond a period of fifteen days from the date of removal of the meter from the consumers premises.  While sending the challenged meters to the ME laboratory, this fact must be clearly indicated on the MCO and AE/AEE ME be requested for intimation of test results at the earliest.  It is further stated that the whole process should in no case take more than a month.  But in the present case, the Ops have themselves violated their own sales regulation number 71.2.2 by taking one year for testing of the disputed electricity meter of the complainant.  There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why they did not check the electricity meter in question immediately after its removal on 11.7.2014 and why they took such a long period for checking of the meter in question.  Under the circumstances, we feel that the OPs cannot make the complainant liable for their own wrongs and further the complainant cannot be compelled to pay such a huge amount of Rs.28,038/- on the basis of over hauling the account of the complainant.

 

8.             The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the removed meter in question vide MCO, Ex.OP/2 was not packed and sealed as per the instructions contained in commercial circular number 8/99, which provides that as per the existing instructions contained in para 2 ( c) of CC number 45/97 dated 17.12.1997, it is mandatory that all meters removed against any MCO are to be sent to ME laboratories, in the sealed card box duly signed by the concerned PSEB officers/officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case, consumer refused to sign the meter test results/report, such meters shall be kept in the sealed box by the OP.S/Divn. till the final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Dispute Settlement Committee or Civil Courts, such sealed meter shall be returned to the ME laboratories. Similar procedure is to be adopted in case meters sealed by the Enforcement Agencies/Operation Organization in theft cases.”  But, in the present case, no such instructions have been followed by the Ops rather the same have been violated by the own officers/officials of the OPs.  There is nothing mentioned in the written reply of the OPs that whether the meter in question was packed in the cardboard box and thereafter it was sealed and signed by the complainant and officer/officials of the OPs.    The electricity meter in question was neither replaced in the presence of the consumer nor his representative as is evident from the copy of MCO, Ex.OP/1.  In Tarsem Singh versus Punjab State Electricity Board 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 584 (P&H), it has been held that checking of the defective meters should be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative.  A notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date, time and place of testing of meter.  Procedure prescribed to this effect in the Punjab State Electricity Board’s Commercial circulars number 45/98 and 8/99 is mandatory.  But, in the present case, there is no explanation that why such instructions as contained in the commercial circular number 8/99 were not adhered to by the OPs.  In these circumstances, we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.28,038/- raised against the complainant vide bill dated  27.6.2015, Ex.C-2 as sundry charges and allowances.  The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and Rs.2500/- on account of litigation expenses.         

 

10.           This order of ours shall be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

 

                Pronounced.

                March 18, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member