DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA.
Complaint No. 181/2014
Instituted on: 19.08.2014
Decided on: 09.03.2015
Naresh Kumar son of Amar Nath resident of H.No.B-2/738, Near Old Telephone Exchange, Barnala.
..Complainant
Versus
AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division, Barnala, Distt. Barnala.
..Opposite party
For the complainant : Shri R.K.Jain, Advocate.
For opposite party : Shri R.K.Singla, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Karnail Singh, Member
Vandna Sidhu, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Naresh Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased a house from Satish Kumar etc. vide sale deed number 5214 dated 31.12.2009 along with the electricity connection bearing account number L22CW360334P installed in the said house. Earlier the house in question was sold by Rattan Chand son of Nihal Chand to the above said Satish Kumar etc. The complainant as such has stepped into the shoes of Ashok Kumar and is a consumer of the OP by paying the requisite bills to the OP.
2. It is further averred in the complaint that the OP through its contractor relocated the meter and installed the same in the multiple meter box. Further case of the complainant is that in January, 2012, the meter of the complainant was replaced with a new one and the newly installed meter since was running fast, the same was challenged by the complainant by depositing the requisite fee of Rs.120/- vide BA number 319/6293 dated 27.3.2012. It is further averred that the meter in question of the complainant was removed in his absence and the same was neither packed nor sealed in he card board box and the Op started to raise the bills on average basis. The complainant has further averred in the complaint that in the first week of June, 2013 installed a new meter and the said meter used to blink even when no load was connected and the matter was reported to the JE, who checked the same and admitted that the meter will be replaced, but nothing happened. As such, the complainant submitted the application form and deposited a sum of Rs.120/- vide BA-16-035/46380 and the Op started to send the bills on average basis. The meter of the complainant was removed in his absence nor the same was packed and sealed in a cardboard box nor the complainant was ever called in the ME laboratory at the time of checking of the meter. Thereafter the complainant received a bill dated 4.4.2014 for Rs.29,850/- and the complainant approached the OP about the excess bill, who told that the meter was checked and found to be OK and as such, the bill dated 4.4.2014 which includes Rs.27732/- as arrears is required to be deposited. No details whatsoever of the amount of Rs.27,732/- were provided to the complainant, despite requests of the complainant to the OP. The complainant requested the OP to withdraw the demand of Rs.27,732/-, but nothing happened as such he paid the amount of current consumption charges of the bill through cheque. Thereafter the complainant received another bill dated 30.5.2014 for Rs.32,680/- including arrears of Rs.30035/- despite payment of current consumption charges. As such, the complainant made so many requests to withdraw the demand of Rs.27,732/- and Rs.30035/-, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to withdraw the illegal bill dated 30.5.3014 for Rs.30,035/- and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
3. In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that factually the electricity bills for the period from 19.4.2012 to 21.8.2014 have been raised to the consumer on actual consumption basis. During the said period the complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing a sum of Rs.120/- on 27.3.2012. The meter in question was sent to the ME laboratory Sangrur for checking vide challan number 5 dated 28.3.2013 and installed a new meter. On 28.3.2013 the said removed meter was checked by the official of the ME laboratory and found it to be OK. Again the complainant challenged the new installed meter by depositing meter challenge fee on 4.9.2013. On this the OP sent the said meter in the ME laboratory vide challan number 75 dated 20.11.2013 and installed a new meter. Thereafter, on 20.11.2013 the removed meter was checked and found OK. Thereafter the OP served a legal letter number 1351 dated 4.12.2013 and informed the complainant that as per checking of the ME laboratory, the working of the removed meter was found OK, as such the complainant was advised to deposit the consumption charges. It is stated that in fact the complainant has deposited only Rs.24,892/- for the period from 19.4.2012 to 21.08.2014 and a sum of Rs.32,640/- is still outstanding against the complainant as consumption charges. Any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of sale deed, Ex.C-3 copy of affidavit, Ex.C-4 copy of letter dated 31.5.2014, Ex.C-5 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-6 copy of cheque dated 31.5.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit of Krishan Gopal, Ex.OP-2 copy of calculation sheet, Ex.OP-3 copy of store challan, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter dated 4.12.2013, Ex.OP-5 copy of calculation sheet and closed evidence.
5. We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the house in question from Satish Kumar and others on 31.12.2009 as is evident from the copy of sale deed, which is on record as Ex.C-2. The complainant has also produced on record the Photostat copy of an affidavit of Ashok Kumar, on whose name the connection in question was running, whereby he has clearly told that the complainant had purchased the house in question and he has no objection if the connection in question is transferred in the name of the complainant, as such, we feel that the complainant has stepped into the shoes of Ashok Kumar. The complainant has been using the electricity connection in question and paying the bills of electricity to the OP, as such, we feel that the complainant being the beneficiary of the connection is a ‘consumer’ of the OP and can very well maintain the present complaint before this Forum. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Manoj Kumar vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. and another 2014(1) Civil Court Cases 625 (Delhi) has held that a consumer would be even a person whose premises are for the time being connected for purpose of receiving electricity with a work of license.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that in the month of January, 2012 he challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing Rs.120/- vide BA number 319/6293 dated 27.3.2012, but the meter was not checked in his presence and stated that the meter is quite OK. Thereafter again the complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter installed by the OP by depositing Rs.120/- vide receipt number BA-16-035/46380 on 4.09.2013. But, on this occasion also, the Op did not call the complainant to check the meter in his presence. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the Op has not followed the prescribed procedure for checking of the challenged meters. As such, the complainant has contended that since the meter installed by the Op in his premises was running fast, he is not liable to pay the charges demanded by the OP vide bill dated 30.5.2014.
8. We have very carefully perused the whole of the case file and find that the removed meters from the premises of the complainant on both the occasions were 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 OP. There is nothing mentioned in the written reply of the OP 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 OP. The electricity meter in question was neither checked in the presence of the consumer or his representative nor the complainant was ever called at the time of checking of the meters in question. 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 n 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 OP.
9. In the present case, the complainant has prayed that the demand of Rs.30,035/- raised vide bill dated 30.05.2014 be withdrawn, the amount which has been raised on account of previous balance. It is worth mentioning here that the Op has demanded the previous balance on the ground that the meters in question were found OK, but since we have held above that the meters in question were not checked in accordance with the instructions contained in commercial circular number 8/99, we feel that the demand of Rs.30035/- raised by the OP deserves to be quashed.
10. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to withdraw the demand of Rs.30035/- raised vide bill dated 30.05.2014 and further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.
11. 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.
March 9,2015.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
