Punjab

Sangrur

CC/84/2015

Nachhatar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Simardeep Singh Mann

16 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    84

                                                Instituted on:      19.02.2015

                                                Decided on:       16.07.2015

 

 

Nachhatar Singh aged 68 years son of Bir Singh, resident of Village Hassanpur, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division, Rangian, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Mukesh Kaushal, Adv.

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.             Shri Nachhatar Singh, 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 obtained one electricity connection from the OPs bearing account number HP-27/226 with a sanctioned load of 04.72 KW and it is further stated that the complainant has been using the connection and paying the bills regularly.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that his electricity meter was replaced about two years back and new electricity meter was installed and that from the year 2012 the Ops have been issuing the incorrect and irregular bills raising huge demands in the column of sundry charges. It is further averred that the average consumption of the complainant is 250-500 units per billing cycle. The complainant approached the OPs so many times to correct the bills, but all in vain.  Further case of the complainant is that on 28.3.2014, the Ops got deposited an amount of Rs.12,000/- from the complainant on the pretext that the account of the complainant will be overhauled and if excess amount is found then the same bill be refunded. It is further averred that the old meter was never checked in the ME laboratory in the presence of the complainant. It is stated further that the OPs have now issued bill dated 26.12.2014 for Rs.47,955/- including the demand of Rs.42,950/- on account of arrears and sundry charges, which are 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.47,955/- raised by the OPs vide bill dated 26.12.2014, to refund him an amount of Rs.12,000/- along with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 28.3.2014 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and is a guilty of suppressing material facts, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious one.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection in question.  It is stated further that electricity meter of the complainant was checked by the checking officers of the PSPCL and it was found that the complainant was committing theft of electricity, as such it was declared to be a case of theft of electricity. The checking report was prepared by the checking authorities and notice under section 135 of electricity Act was issued wherein a demand of Rs.38,787/- was raised and Rs.15,000/- on account of compounding charges were demanded. The consumer was asked to submit the objections, but he did not do so.  It is stated that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.12,000/- as part payment with the OPs. It is stated further that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.  Lastly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             In rejoinder, the allegations of the complainant in the complaint have been reiterated. However, it is denied that the OPs ever issued any notice under section 135 of the Electricity Act demanding an amount of Rs.38,787/- as theft charges and Rs.15,000/- as compounding charges.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-19 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 copy of despatch register, Ex.OP-2 copy of theft register, Ex.OP-3 affidavit, Ex.OP-4 copy of PDCO, Ex.OP-5 copy of RCO and closed evidence.

 

6.             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.

 

7.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact that  the connection in question is running in the name of the complainant, as such, she is a consumer of the OPs vide connection number HP-22/226.

 

8.             In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on raising of the demand of Rs.42,950/- by the OPs in the bill dated 26.12.2014 on account of arrears and sundry, which is said to be wrong and illegal as the connection of the complainant was never checked by the officials of the OPs. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehemently that the connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the OPs a long back and the complainant was found committing theft of electricity, as such the demand is said to be rightly demanded.  It is further admitted that the amount of Rs.12,000/- was got deposited from the complainant. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant never committed any theft of electricity and the demand is said to be wrong and illegal raised by the OPs vide bill dated 28.03.2014.

 

9.             A very perusal of the file clearly reveals that the OPs have not produced on record any copy of alleged checking report conducted by the officials of the OPs nor any date of checking of the connection of the complainant has been mentioned nor the OPs have produced on record any affidavit of the officials, who conducted the alleged checking.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not produce the copy of alleged checking report to support their contention in the present case.    The leaned counsel for the OPs has referred Ex.OP-1, a page of copy of the despatch register to show that notice was issued to the complainant for deposit of the amount, but it contains only serial number 1698 and does not bear the signature of the complainant, showing receipt of the same nor the Ops have produced on record any postal receipt showing that the same was sent to the complainant by registered post.   Further Ex.OP-2 is a copy of the electricity theft register, but again it is not helpful to the case of the OPs.  Ex.OP-4 is the copy of disconnection order and Ex.OP-5 is the copy of reconnection order dated 19.3.2015. 

 

10.              The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the old removed meter was not packed and sealed in a cardboard box according to the rules and regulations of the OPs.  It is further contended that the complainant was never called to come present in the ME laboratory at the time of checking of the old removed meter nor the same has been checked in the ME laboratory in his presence.  There is no explanation from the Ops that why the meter in question was not checked in the ME laboratory according to the rules and regulations of the PSPCL.  The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the removed meter in question 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. Further there is no explanation from the side of the OPs that on what account, the OPs are demanding such a huge amount of Rs.42,950/- by adding the same in the bill dated 26.12.2014 from the complainant.     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. 

 

11.            The learned counsel for the complainant has further cited Punjab State Electricity Board versus Avtar Singh 2004(3) CPJ 111 ( Punjab State commission), wherein in that case the meter was changed and sent to the ME laboratory and meter found recording 50% less energy and the Ops raised the demand.  It was held that the complainant is not liable to pay anything since no notice was given to the consumer regarding date of checking of the meter in the ME laboratory and report was not signed by the consumer.  It was further held that the OPs did not comply with its own rules.

     

 

12.            In view of our above discussion, we find that OPs are  not only deficient in rendering service to the complainant by raising such a huge demand of Rs.42,950/- vide bill dated 26.12.2014, but are also negligent by not adhering to their own instructions as contained in commercial circular number 8/99 regarding checking and testing of the defective meters.

 

 

13.            In result of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.42,950/- raised vide bill dated 26.12.2014.  We further order the OPs to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.12,000/- so got deposited from the complainant on 28.03.2014, Rs.15,000/- deposited by the complainant in compliance of the orders of this Forum  and further to refund any amount received from the complainant against the said demand of Rs.42,950/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till realisation,  The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and litigation expenses.

 

 

14.    This order of ours 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.

                July 16,2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member