Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/15/2018

Ram Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.M.S.Libra

18 Feb 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

FATEHGARH SAHIB

 Consumer Complaint No.    :     15 of 2018

 Date of Institution                         :     16.03.2018

          Decision:                              :     18.02.2019

Ram Lal aged about 65 years Son of Late Sh.Ram Asra, R/o Village Attarpur, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala, through its Secretary.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Tohra, District Patiala.
3. The Executive Engineer, The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Tohra, Division Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                         …Opposite Parties

         Complaint under Section 12 to 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.INDERJIT, MEMBER

CAPT.YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

Sh.N.S. Toor, Advocate, counsel for complainant       

Sh.Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OPs

 

ORDER

KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1. Complainant Sh. Ram Lal has filed the present complaint under Section 12 to 14 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging that complainant is an illiterate persons is doing the work of labourer.  The complainant belongs to scheduled caste and being a S.C., he is entitled for getting subsidy of two hundred units per month as per the scheme of Punjab Government.  The electricity connection bearing account No.K64AT320162F is running in the name of deceased Ram Asra father of complainant.  After the death of his father, complainant is using the said electricity connection and regularly paying the electricity bills and nothing is due against the complainant.  In September 2017, employee of OP came for taking reading of said meter connection and on 10.10.2017. Ops issued the bill of Rupees above one lac to the complainant which was in excess of units which were actually consumed by complainant and when it was asked by complainant regarding inflated bill, the OPs stated that it may be due to some fault in said meter.  Thereafter, on 11.10.2017, complainant visited office of OP-2 and moved an application for correction of bill and also requested to get the said faulty meter checked up.  On 14.10.2017, said defective meter was changed with new one and on 13.11.2017 OP-2 issued new bill of Rs.1,09,410/-.  Complainant again visited OP-2 for correction of bill.  On 20.11.2017, on visit of the complainant, OP-2 stated that they could not correct the bill till the report of the lab and in the meantime to pay average bill i.e. 1600/- which he paid on same day under receipt dated 20.11.2017.  Consequently, the OPs issued a bill of Rs.1,15,990/- after lab verification of meter and also refused to correct the same. OPs forcibly thereafter disconnected the said meter connection and threatened to recover of Rs.1,15,990/- of bill dated 09.01.2018.   Complainant never consumed the units in excess of said excessive bill of Rs.1,15,990/- as there are only four light bulbs and two fans in the house of complainant and it is very important to note that during the period of disputed bill, winter season was going on in which running of fans is not required, only lights are required.  Lastly, it is prayed that complaint of complainant be allowed and OPs be directed to restore the electric meter connection of complainant and amount of Rs.1,15,990/- be declared as null and void.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form, as complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as this Forum is barred as per Section 145 & 154 of electricity Act 2003.  Complainant has concealed true and material facts.  Complainant has no locus standi & cause of action.  Complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties.  Complaint is an abuse and misuse of process of law.  On merits, the electric meter in question is running in the name of Ram Asra and no one till date has informed regarding the  death of said Ram Asra and no one till date has applied for the change of name, so complainant is not a consumer of OPs.  It is submitted that consumer is a defaulter of OPs as he failed to pay Rs.1,25,630/- consumption charges.  It is  submitted that reading was taken as per the actual consumption on the spot.  Complainant has filed a complaint stating that he wants to challenge the meter and also stated that he will comply as per report of ME lab the said complaint was supported by self declaration and after that meter was changed vide MCO No.119/568 dated 11.10.2017 and meter sent to ME Lab for checking through store challan No.173 dated 29.12.2017 by Er.Gurcharan Singh JE, before sending the meter to ME Lab complainant was asked to come present but complainant has given his consent that he is unable to come present before ME Lab and meter may be checked in his absence.  The meter was checked in ME lab in the presence of officials headed by Sr. Executive Engineer Enforcement Khanna and as per report of the ME Lab the “accuracy of meter cannot be checked as the same has been burnt”. After getting report consumer was asked to deposit the consumption charges but instead of depositing the said amount present case has been filed.  OPs are service provider and have every right to disconnect the electric connection in case of default.  Each and every other averments of the complaint are empathically denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, true copies of documents i.e. death certificate of father of complainant Ex.C-2, bill and receipts Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-13 and BPL certificate Ex.C-14, BPL card Ex.C-15 and closed the evidence.  Counsel for OPs also tendered in evidence affidavit of Er.Darbara Singh SDO Ex.OP-1, true copies of documents i.e. application dated 11.10.2017 Ex.OP-2, self declaration Ex.OP-3, application dated 18.12.2017 Ex.OP-4, MCO dated 11.10.2017 Ex.OP-5, Challan Ex.OP-6, calculation sheet Ex.OP-7 and then tendered affidavit of Er. Gurcharan Singh JE Ex.OP-8, stated that the same be read as part of evidence of OPs and then closed evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through written arguments of complainant and also gone the record carefully.
5. Before going into the merits of the complaint, We would like to observe here that electric connection in dispute does not stand in the name of the complainant.

Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is consumer of the OPs or not. 

It is held by our own Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in 2006 (2)  CPC titled as Sat Pal Versus PSEB through its Secretary reproduce as under:

xx                                   xx                xx

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (d) (i) – Consumer – Beneficiary – It is settled that a person who is staying in a house as a actual user of electricity would be a consumer being a beneficiary – In the present case electricity connection was in the name of the father of the complainant – A demand of Rs.12,370 was raised against complainant by PSEB against which District Forum was approached for necessary relief – Order of the Forum holding that complainant is not a consumer cannot be sustained – A beneficiary is also a consumer as defined in C.P. Act – Order set aside – Case remanded for fresh decision on merits.

xx                          xx                          xx

Further it is held in II (1998) CPJ 210 titled as P.K. Malhan Versus SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board reproduced as under:-

xx                                   xx                xx

“(i) Consume Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (d)) – Consumer – Beneficiary – Electricity – Complainant using electricity – Electricity connection in another’s name – Whether complainant is consumer being beneficiary ? (Yes).”

xx                          xx                          xx

 

In view of the above said legal position, the present complainant is a consumer of the OPs, hence the complaint is maintainable.

6. The primary allegation on which the complainant argued is that the complainant has received the bill dated 13.11.2017 for Rs.1,15,598/- in which Rs.1,09,410/- are included as Previous year balance, current year balance and sundry charges.  The act of raising the said demand in bill under the given heads is totally incorrect and is in violation of the circulars and instructions of the OPs and the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount.   

7.       On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued that bill including previous year balance, current year balance and sundry charges issued as per rules and regulation of the board.  As per the instructions of the OPs board, the meter was installed in the premises of complainant. The bills were charged as per actual consumption.

8.       We are of the opinion that the impugned bill has to be quashed.  We have arrived at this conclusion due to reasons enumerated as under:-

a)       No show cause notice was given to the complainant on the basis of checking Ex.OP-6 to explain his conduct immediately after 01.01.2018.  The complainant remained unheard.  Even this step was not taken by the opposite parties.  Neither the opposite parties handed over the Memo of Inspection to the complainant under proper acknowledgement required under the law as per Sales Regulation No.112.5.1 and 112.5.2 which reads as under:-

112.5.1“Memorandum of Inspection and Seizure: Results of inspection and evidence, if any seized by enforcement or operations officers shall be recorded at site in the Memorandum of Inspection and Seizure in triplicate.   One copy should be retained by the Inspecting officer, the 2^nd should be sent to the AE/AAE/XEN(OPs) for placing it in the consumer’s case and taking necessary follow up action.  The 3^rd copy of which should be given to the consumer or his representative available at the time of inspection under proper acknowledgement.”

112.5.2   The Memo of Inspection may be subsequently entered in a Separate register to be maintained by each Inspecting Officer.  The register as mentioned above should be numbered and page marked and should invariably remain in the custody of the concerned office/official it must be ensured that it is handed over to his successor and a note to his effect is added in the handing over report.”

b)                It was bounden duty of the opposite parties to comply with the above said mandatory directions.  In the present case mandatory directions have not been complied with by the OPs as mentioned above as checking report has not been served upon the complainant.

c)       More so, the opposite parties produced the checking report Ex.OP-6.  In the checking report, there is no endorsement on it that the complainant received the copy of the same. The opposite parties further argued that the complainant was called number of times by them but the complainant failed to oblige, no evidence has been produced to support this version.

9.                 We are of the opinion that the act of the OPs in including sundry charges in bill is totally wrong, illegal, arbitrary and more importantly contrary to the rules and regulations and the guidelines embodied/formulated by the OPs on the following grounds:

a)       That at the time of removal of the meter, the meter was neither packed nor sealed under the signatures of the consumer……

10.               No notice of the alleged checking of the said meter in ME Lab was given to the complainant specifying the date, time and place was given the complainant, as a result of which the meter was checked in the absence of the complainant thereby flouting the rules and regulations laid down by the board of the OPs and principles of the natural justice.

11.               Under the circumstances, the checking report prepared cannot be made the basis to impose the penalty.  It cannot render any help to opposite parties. Mere obtaining the signatures of the complainant by saying that it was a routine checking will not serve the purpose as consumer must have signed the checking report in good faith.  Moreover, it clear from alleged Ex.OP-4 which is to be signed by complainant but it was signed by someone because complainant is illiterate and only marked his thumb impression. 

12.               The provisions of circular No.45/97 made it mandatory on the part of the official of the board to pack the meter in cardboard box, got it sealed and signed by the consumer and countersigned by the official of the board and also intimate to the consumer to remain present in the ME Lab during the checking of the meter.  It has been held by our own Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as PSEB Vs Daljit Kaur, wherein it has been held that:-

          xx                          xx                                   xx              

“Consumer Protection Act 1985 – Section 12 and 15 – Electric meter – Department circular – Circular No.45/97 of PSEB requires that when a meter is removed for replacement, it must be got sealed after having packed in cardboard box and should be signed by consumer and countersigned by Board official – It also requires that consumer should be present at the time of checking of meter in the ME Lab – In the present case, these instructions were not complied with.” 

xx                                  xx                                   xx

But in the present case, the meter was neither sealed by the OPs nor did it bear the signatures of the complainant.  In our opinion procedure contained in above mentioned circular must be treated as mandatory.

13.     The impugned demand was added in the bill under column previous year balance, current year balance and sundry charges by the OPs.  As per PSEB regulations separate notice/bill is issued for previous charges but the OPs had violated its own regulations No.124.1 of the Electricity Supply which is reproduced as under:-

xx                          xx                                   xx              

“124.1  There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years of otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/Load or Demand Surcharge pointed out by internal Auditor/detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the Board employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/multiplication factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc.  In all such cases, separate bills should be issued giving complete details of the charges levied.  Such charges should not be clubbed in the current bills of the consumer.”

          xx                                  xx                                   xx

          As such the OPs have violated its own terms and conditions as well as instructions by clubbing Previous year balance, current year balance and sundry charges in the current bill of the consumer.

14.     In the present case, the MCO of dated 11.10.2017 and impugned bill dated 09.01.2018.  It is very strange that after three months the OPs woke up and charged the amount by clubbing it in the current bill of the consumer.

The stand of the OPs is misconceived as they could not explain how the said amount was calculated by them.  More so no details of the same were supplied to the complainant nor any explanation of the same was given by the OPs in their reply as well as in the affidavit.

15.     No cogent and convincing evidence has been placed on record from which we can believe the story propounded by the OPs.  Thus no alternative is left except to allow the complaint.

16.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Previous year balance, current year balance and sundry charges of bill dated 09.01.2018 Ex.C-3 amounting to Rs.1,15,990/- is hereby quashed accordingly and ops are directed to adjust the amount if the complainant has deposited against disputed amount and further the ops are directed is restore the electricity supply of the complainant immediately, the present complaint is partly allowed with cost of Rs.5,000/- on account of compensation for mental harassment together with litigation charges payable by the OPs to the complainant and OP are direct to issue fresh bill to complainant on the basis of consumption and complainant will be obliged to pay such charges as per rules within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt copy of this order.

17. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 04.02.2019 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Pronounced: Dated:  18.02.2019

 

                   (Inderjit)    (Capt.Yuvinder Singh Matta)                  (Kuljit Singh)

Member               Member                                 President