DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.474 of 21-09-2011
Decided on 20-01-2012
Narinder Pal son of Sh. Ralla Singh son of Sh. Gurmukh Singh, aged about 33 years, Resident of
H.No.27114, Street No.7, Naruana Road, Amarpura Basti, Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its C.M.D.
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Urban Sub Division, Multania Road, Bathinda, through its
SDO/XEN.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. J.D.Nayyar, counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the
complaint are that the complainant is holding electricity connection bearing A/c No.B14 NR 510670Y
against the sanctioned load of 1 KW and has been paying the bills regularly so issued by the opposite
parties. The average consumption of the complainant remained upto Rs.400/- bio-monthly. The
complainant has alleged that earlier the meter No.93275 was installed in his residential house but the
said meter was not running properly as such the opposite parties have been issuing the bills to the
complainant on average basis for the last about two years and he has been regularly paying the same
and has also been requesting them to change his meter and to issue the bills as per actual consumption
but the opposite parties failed to change the same. The opposite parties installed the new meter in the
premises of the complainant in the month of May/June, 2011 and thereafter, issued a bill dated
03.06.2011 on average basis for a sum of Rs.74,120/- in which they added Rs.66,527/- as Sundry
Charges and allowances and the remaining amount of Rs.8,000/- approximately as amount of bill. The
complainant has further alleged that there was no outstanding due against him rather he was regularly
paying the bills, issued by the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not give any details of the said
amount of Rs.66,527/- and the balance amount is also highly exaggerated and exorbitant. Further, the
officials of the opposite parties removed the old defective meter at the back of the complainant and
without obtaining his signatures nor the said meter was packed in the cardboard box rather the same
has been taken by the officials of the opposite parties in open condition. They never checked the old
removed meter in his presence. After receiving the said bill, he approached the opposite party No.2 and
requested to quash the said demand but to no effect rather issued a fresh bill dated 02.08.2011 to the
complainant for a sum of Rs.78,700/- by adding the previous balance of Rs.70,672/-. The complainant
has further alleged that the opposite parties have not provided any opportunity of being heard to the
complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum
to withdraw the demands raised through bills dated 03.06.2011 and 02.08.2011 along with cost and
compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum,
have filed their joint written statements and pleaded that the old meter of the complainant was changed
with new one. As per the billing cycle, the meter status code was taken as 'O' by the computer showing
the reading 122 and thus the consumption of 121 units. However, in the next cycle, the same was taken
by the computer as 'I' code and accordingly, the bills started generating on the basis of average
whereas, the meter was giving actual reading as consumed by the complainant. The complainant kept
on making the payment on the basis of average. The amount charged on the basis of average, is
subject to further adjustments on actual meter reading and the Electricity Board is empowered to
demand the balance amount or refund the excess amount as the case may be. The bill was charged on
the average basis from the period 12/2009 to 02/2011 i.e. period for which the computer has shown the
status code 'I'. However, in the billing cycle, the meter status recorded was 'O' since, the meter was
working accurately. The computer generated the next bill dated 04/2011 on the basis of actual meter
reading after deducting the amount already charged on the basis of average. Since, the meter had been
showing the actual consumption as such the complainant is liable to make the payment of the same to
the opposite parties. The amount is being charged as per the meter reading and after deducting the
amount already charged on the basis of average.
3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had received a bill dated
03.06.2011 on average basis for a sum of Rs.74,120/- in which the amount of Rs.66,527/- has been
shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances while the remaining amount of Rs.8,000/- as the
amount of bill for his electric connection bearing A/c No.B14 NR 510670Y against the sanctioned load of
1 KW. He has been paying the bills regularly. The meter installed in his premises was not working
properly as such the opposite parties have been issuing the bills to the complainant on average basis
from the last two years and he has been paying those bills regularly. The learned counsel for the
complainant has further submitted that there is no outstanding dues against the complainant as he has
been paying the bills regularly. The opposite parties did not give the details of demand, raised through
bill dated 03.06.2011. The bill amount is also exaggerated and exorbitant as the average consumption of
the complainant remained upto Rs.400/- bio-monthly. The officials of the opposite parties removed the
old defective meter from the premises of the complainant in his absence without obtaining his
signatures. The said meter was never packed in the cardboard box and it was taken by the opposite
parties in open condition. The said meter was never checked in the presence of the complainant. The
complainant had approached the opposite parties on receiving the bill dated 03.06.2011 and requested
to quash the impugned demand but to no avail. The opposite parties issued a fresh bill dated 02.08.2011
of Rs.78,700/- by adding the previous balance of Rs.70,672/-. No opportunity of being heard was
provided to the complainant by the opposite parties.
6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the electricity meter had been
restored with new one. As per billing cycle, the meter status code was taken as 'O' by the computer
showing the reading as 122 and the consumption as 121 units. In the next cycle, the meter status was
recorded as 'I' code and the bills started generating on average basis whereas, the meter was giving
actual reading being consumed by the complainant. The amount charged on the basis of average is
subject to adjustments on actual meter reading but the complainant was charged on the average basis
for the period 12/2009 to 02/2011 (the period for which the computer has shown the status code 'I'). In
the billing cycle, the meter status code taken by the computer as 'O' since, the meter was working
accurately. The computer generated the next bill dated 04/2011 on the basis of actual meter reading
after deducting the amount already charged on the basis of average. The amount is being charged as
per the meter reading and after deducting the amount already charged on the basis of average. The
learned counsel for the opposite parties has further submitted that the complainant has never
approached the opposite parties with any request to challenge the meter. The removed meter was duly
packed in the cardboard box, sealed and handed over to the concerned JE. The amount demanded
pertains to the balance recoverable after deducting the amount charged on the basis of average from
actual consumption recorded by the meter.
7. The Consumption Data Ex.C-9 placed on file shows that on 11/2009, the meter has recorded the
status code as 'O' and the reading as 121 units. Thereafter, from 01/2010 to 01/2011 i.e. for
approximately one year, the old reading recorded by the meter was 122 units and the new reading as
4068, 5469, 6222, 7232, 8324, 9364, 10878 units and the meter status is 'I'. On 03/2011, the old
reading was recorded as 122 units and the new reading was recorded as 12754 units and the
consumed units has shown as 12632 units and the meter status was as 'O'. Thereafter, on 05.2011, the
old reading was recorded as 2 units and the new reading was recorded as 270 units and the consumed
units has shown as 1589 units and the meter status was 'C' which means, the meter has been changed
in the month of May, 2011. Thereafter, on 07/2011, the old reading was recorded as 270 units and the
new reading was recorded as 994 units and the consumed units has shown as 724 units and the meter
status was 'O'. Thereafter, on 09/2011, the old reading was recorded as 994 units and the new reading
was recorded as 1815 units and the consumed units has shown as 821 units and the meter status was
as 'O'.
8. The above said consumption data itself reveals that it has been recording the old reading as 122
units whereas every time, the new reading has been changed and the status of the meter has been
recorded as 'I' code which shows that the new reading of the meter is not correct and the working of the
meter was not proper.
9. A perusal of bills Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 shows that the complainant has been receiving the bills on
average basis. The bill dated 04.02.2011 Ex.C-4 shows that the previous cycle of the bill as 121, 117,
121, 121, 123 and 121 units.
10. The admitted fact of the parties, is that the bills have been sent on average basis for the period the
meter status was shown as 'I' by the computer but the opposite parties submitted that when the meter
was changed, the bills sent on average basis were adjusted as the new meter has been showing the
actual reading, the amount so raised as per the meter reading and after deducting the amount charged
on the basis of average.
The contention of the complainant is that the old meter has been removed by the opposite parties in his
absence. The meter was neither sealed nor packed in the presence of the complainant or any of his
representative nor his signatures were obtained on the seals etc. The meter has never been checked in
the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant. As the meter was defective, it was mandatory for the
opposite parties to get the meter checked from the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant. The
opposite parties have submitted that the meter was removed and after duly packing and sealing, handed
over to the concerned JE. The opposite parties have neither disclosed the name of the concerned JE to
whom the meter has been handed over nor his affidavit is placed on file. Thus, the meter of the
complainant was not sent to the ME Lab to confirm the defect in it which is violation of the mandatory
provisions of the rules provided under the Electricity Rules and Regulation.
11. The meter has been removed by the opposite parties and has been changed with new one and the
sundry charges have been raised but on what parameters, these charges have been raised, is not fully
explained by the opposite parties. The ME Lab report was a right method to show the working of the
meter is correct or not but the meter has not been sent to the ME Lab. In such circumstances, a bill can
be overhauled as per Regulation 21.4 as it deals with 'Defective Meters' and the amount can be
calculated according to 21.4 (g) (ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007.
According 21.4(g) (ii):-
“The accounts of a consumer will be overhauled for the period a burnt meter remained at site and for the
period of direct supply, on the basis of energy consumption of the corresponding period of the previous
year after calibrating for the changes in load, if any. In case the average consumption for the
corresponding period of the previous years is not available then the consumer will be tentatively billed
for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicated in para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently
adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the succeeding year.”
Thus, it will meet the ends of justice, if a direction be given according to the above mentioned regulation,
according to which the consumption can be calculated on the basis of LxDxHxF formula. After
calculating it according to the above said formula, the average bill be sent to the complainant and will be
adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the succeeding year.
12. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, there is deficiency in service on the part of
the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost. The opposite parties
are directed to withdraw the amount raised in the bill dated 06.03.2011 of Rs.66,527/- and in bill dated
02.08.2011 of Rs.70,672/- and further directed to overhaul the account of the complainant and to
provide him the details to which it has been overhauled and will send the bill on average basis as
mentioned above on the basis of LxDxHxF formula and be adjusted on the basis of actual consumption
in the corresponding period of the succeeding year. Compliance of this order with regard to cost and
withdrawing of the amount be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The
remaining part of the order be complied with accordingly.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
20.01.2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Sukhwinder Kaur) (Amarjeet Paul)
Member Member
