Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/55/2016

Parkash Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.

                

Consumer Complaint No.      :  55/2016        

Date of decision                     :  30.09.2016

Parkash Kaur W/o Hukam Singh, Through Satwinder Singh Attorney S/o Hukum Singh R/o Opposite Soni Gas Agency, Balachaur, Chandigarh Road, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.                                                                                                         ….Complainant

    Versus

1. Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala.
2. Sub Division Officer, P.S.P.C.L. No.1, Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.
3. XEN, P.S.P.C.L. Garhshankar-Anandpur Sahib Road, Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.  

                                                                  ….Opposite Parties

                 Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         Sh.Satwinder Singh, Attorney

For OPs                         :         Sh.P.K. Dhir, Advocate

QUORUM:

S.BHUPINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

 ORDER

S.BHUPINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.       In brief the case of the complainant is that complainant is having domestic electric connection bearing No.N21UC211363X  (meter No.10791215) complainant  filed earlier consumer complaint No.124 of 2015 against OPs.  After hearing, this Forum has passed order dated 18.03.2016 vide which demand of Rs.19702/- added as sundry charges was quashed.  This Forum has also directed the OPs to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses.  Under Para No.13 of the said order, Ops were directed to pass an order as after hearing the complainant.  But OPs instead of issuing notice, called explanation vide memo No.871 dated 03.05.2016 i.e. Bill-cum-show cause notice of short assessment and in case of not submitting explanation, complainant was ordered to deposit Rs.14,264/-.  By issuing, show cause notice, in order to comply the directions of this Forum, contempt of court was committed and lowered the image of complainant.  OPs has installed the meter outside the premises of complainant, the OPs  has tried to show that the said meter was installed in the premises of complainant.  Power com has not followed the rules for deposit of excess money.  Rs.7470/- were told to deposit but after overhauling the record, Rs.7240/- were deposited  on 05.02.2015.  After that Rs.19702/- was also ordered to deposit which was challenged by complainant before this Forum.  But this Forum has rejected the ordered of deposit of said amount. Then, by issuing Bill cum show cause notice Rs.14264/- and after that vide memo No.1102 dated 10.06.2016 Rs.12264/- was ordered to be deposited.  In this way, OPs has violated the rules and regulation which clearly shows that OPs has demanded money from consumers with its own wishes for harassing and compelling the consumers.  Due to fault of meter, the said amount was added.  It is the duty of PSPCL to care the meter which were installed outside the premises of consumer.  If any problem has occurred in the meter, then it is to be checked in Laboratory and due intimation for checking is required to be given to consumer 7 days in advance, as per order, Regulation 21.4(d) of Electricity Supply Code.  Vide which the intimation for date of checking of meter so that consumer can challenge the same.  But the OPs has not followed the rules and tried to hide the same from consumer.  In this way, complainant was unable to challenge the meter report of Lab.  Not only this, intimation in writing regarding meter testing report was also required to be given to the complainant which was also not done in this case.  By violating the rules and regulation, the power com had ordered to deposit Rs.12264/- vide its letter No.1102 dated 10.06.2016 on account of sundry charges.  OPs has called explanation vide memo No.871 dated 03.05.2016 and told that Rs.14264/- to deposit and after that as per memo No.1102 dated 10.06.2016 asked to deposit Rs.12264/-.  In this way, OPs has violated its regulation 21.4(d) and also contempt of court of order of CC No.124/2015.  It is prayed that in view of above circumstances, demand of  Rs.12264/- be quashed and Ops be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to complainant on account of compensation for harassment.  Litigation Expenses also claimed.  

2.       Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement stating therein that it is submitted that as per decision dated 18.03.2015 in consumer complaint No.124 of 2015, Rs.21702/- (Rs.19702/- including Rs.2000/- i.e. compensation and litigation expenses) was refunded to complainant.  Stopped meter of consumer was changed vide MCO No.154/105585 dated 28.01.2015 and sent to ME Lab Goraya vide Challan No.62 dated 18.02.2015. As per supply Regulation dated 30.01.2002, after overhauling stopped meter for 9/2014 to 1/2015, show cause notice No.871 dated 03.05.2016 was issued and objections if any, were called within 15 days.  Complainant has submitted explanation dated 18.05.2016.  After examining the  explanation, as per regulations, 9/2014 to 1/2015 amount deposited by complainant and after adjustment of  Rs.2000/- as awarded by this forum, speaking order of short assessment No.1102 dated 10.06.2016 was issued vide which an amount of Rs.12264/- was demanded.  On overhauling of record, it is transpired that complainant had deposited Rs.6568/- as arrear’s amount on 05.10.2015.  After adjustment of said amount Rs.5049/- required to be recovered from complainant for which letter No.1405 dated 21.07.2016 through official of Ops was sent and complainant refused to accept the same.  This letter No.1405 dated 21.07.2016 through registered post sent on 29.07.2016.  As per directions of department, meter of complainant was installed outside the premises.  For deposit of Rs.5049/- (12264-6568-647) is as per OPs letter No.1404 dated 21.07.2016 in which bills surcharge amount of Rs.647/- was adjusted.  Rs.7240/- which were deposited on 05.02.2015 were on account of changed faulted meter for 1027 units, which were as per same period of 01/2014 of 1243 units and required to be recovered.  As per regulation 21.4 faulted meter is required to be challenged with requisite fee. Only challenged meter was required to be checked at ME Lab under intimation to in the presence of the consumer.  It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.

3.       In support of complaint, attorney of complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.

4.       Learned Counsel for OPs has also tendered affidavit of Balwant Kishore, AEE Ex.OPA alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of learned counsels for the parties.

6.       From the entire record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the  evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant is consumer of the electricity connection bearing No.N21UC211363X.  The meter of the complainant stopped functioning as is evident from the consumption data Ex.OP-5.  The OP changed the meter of the complainant and overhauled the account of the complainant.  The OP in the regular consumption bill of complainant raised demand of Rs.19702/- under head sundry charges.  The complainant challenged the said demand in the consumer Forum vide Consumer Complaint No.124/2015 which was decided by this Forum on 18.03.2016 vide order Ex.C-2, in which this Forum allowed the complaint and set aside/quashed the demand of Rs.19702/- raised by OP vide bill Ex.C-1.  However, liberty was given to the OP i.e. PSPCL to duly assess the chargeable amount, after giving notice in writing  to complainant and after hearing her.  Thereafter, speaking order shall be passed by the OPs, as per rules and regulation of the PSPCL and Principles of natural justice, qua the due amount after giving intimation in writing to the complainant.  The complainant was also awarded Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses. 

7.       The OPs had already changed the meter of the complainant which has stopped functioning vide MCO No.154 dated 27.11.2015 Ex.OP-1.  The OP had already checked the said meter from ME Lab, vide report dated 05.02.2015 Ex.OP-4, in order to comply with the order dated 18.03.2016, the Ops overhauled the entire account of the complainant and passed short assessment then gave notice to the complainant of short assessment vide memo No.871 dated 03.05.2016 asking the complainant to submit objection/explanation, if any, thereby the complainant was given full and proper opportunity to submit objection/explanation, if any, against the said short assessment and the complainant was required to do so within period of 15 days.  The complainant submitted objections vide letter dated 18.05.2016, which were duly considered by the OPs and after scrutinizing the whole case on the basis of the objections/explanation submitted by complainant, the OP passed speaking order of short assessment and sent to the complainant vide memo No.1102 dated 10.06.2016 Ex.C-7/Ex.OP-2 and the complainant was required to deposit Rs.12264/- and the complainant deposited Rs.6568/- only with the OPs vide receipt dated 05.10.2015 Ex.C-3.  Not only this, the OPs sent another letter to complainant i.e. letter No.1405 dated 21.07/2016 Ex.OP-3, asking the complainant to deposit the balance amount of Rs.5049/- and the complainant was also given opportunity of being heard or to file objection, if any against the said demand within 7 days, but the complainant neither appeared before the OPs nor filed any objection nor deposited balance amount of Rs.5049/-.  So all this shows that the OPs have fully complied with the order of this Forum i.e. passed the assessment order, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the complainant.

8.       The attorney of the complainant submitted that the complainant was not given intimation by OPs to get the meter checked in the ME Lab.  So entire process of the Ops is against the Rules and Regulations of the PSPCL. Here we do not agree with this contention of the attorney of the complainant because as per rules and regulations of the OPs, when the stopped/defective meter of the consumer is checked in the ME Lab no notice is required to be given to the consumer to be present at the time of checking of the meter.  In case, the complainant has challenged the meter and deposited the meter challenge fee in that event presence of the complainant required at the time of checking the mater in the ME Lab.  In the present case the complainant neither challenged the functioning of the meter nor deposited the meter challenge fee.  So the Ops was justified in checking of the meter of the complainant in the absence of the complainant.  Moreover, the meter of the complainant had already been checked in the ME Lab before passing order dated 18.03.2016 by this Forum and this Forum has not passed any order for rechecking of the meter in the presence of the complainant.  In the light of above discussion, we are of the firm view that the Ops has followed the proper procedure and passed the assessment order after giving full and proper opportunity of being heard to the complainant.  As such, the OPs have fully complied with the order dated 18.03.2016.

9.       Resultantly, we found no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

 10.       Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties, as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  30.09.2016

                                                          (BHUPINDER SINGH)

                                                          President   

 

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                          Member