Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1419

Sandeep Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Gosain

29 Jan 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,   PUNJAB    SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                                      First Appeal No.1419 of 2012.

 

                                                          Date of Institution:    18.10.2012.

                                                          Date of Decision:               29.01.2015.

 

Sandeep Jain S/o Sh. Laxmi Chand Jain, R/o B.XXVI.826, Nanak Nagar, New Sabzi Mandi, Ludhiana.

 

                                                          …..Appellant/Complainant  

                                      Versus

 

1.      Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala,     through its Chairman.

 

2.      Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City North U-III,         Ludhiana, through its SDO XEN.

 

                                                          ….Respondents/OPs.

         

First Appeal against order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.

Quorum:-

 

                    Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member.

                    Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.     

Present:-

 

          For the appellant         :         Sh. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for

                                                Sh. Arun Gosain, Advocate.

          For the respondents:   Ms Meena Bansal, Advocate.

 

BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER:-

                                     

                   This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 27.08.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, “the District Forum”), Ludhiana vide which the complaint filed by him against the respondents/OPs was dismissed and the demand of Rs.5,67,020/- charged by the OPs vide bill dated 27.12.2011 (Ex.C-3 ) was held to be legal, genuine and recoverable from the complainant.

2.           Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant was having an electric connection bearing Account No.W-42-CS-010140-Y that was installed in his premises under DS category for small power connection, having load of 21.40 KW. He had been making payment of the bills regularly, as raised by the OPs. It was pleaded that his normal consumption bills ranged between Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that the Meter Reader of the OPs did not record the readings of the said connection for the last more than six months and rather prepared the bills on average basis. Suddenly, in the month of November, 2011, OPs sent a bill dated 25.11.2012, vide which an amount of Rs.5,31,510/- was raised. The complainant met the OPs several times and requested to furnish the details of the said bill and also to explain its reasons, but they refused to supply the same as also to withdraw the exaggerated bill. Instead they sent another bill dated 27.12.2011 for an amount of Rs.5,67,020/-, which included the arrears of the previous bill. It was further pleaded that his unit remained closed for 2-3 years and this fact was brought to the notice of the OPs. He again met the OPs, but they refused to withdraw the impugned bill and rather, threatened  him that in case of non-payment of the dues, his connection would be disconnected. It was further pleaded that in terms of Section 26(6) of Indian Electricity Act, any dispute regarding wrong billing due to defective meter is to be referred to Electrical Inspector and only thereafter, the bill can be raised. Under these circumstances, complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum, seeking directions to the OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.5,67,020/- raised vide bill dated 25.11.2011. A compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- was also prayed.  
3.           Upon notice, the OPs filed joint written reply, pleading therein that earlier the electric connection of the complainant was having account No.SM-21/387, with sanctioned load of 10.78 KW under NRS category. The meter of that connection became dead stop. So the same was replaced, vide MCO dated 25.05.2010 with a new meter, having serial No.794095. Thereafter, the complainant applied for extension in load and the same was increased from 10.78 KW to 21.40 KW, vide SCO dated 27.05.2010 and a new account No.CS-01/140 was allotted to it. The complainant challenged the working of the new meter No.794095 by depositing Rs.450/- on 12.12.2011, alleging that the same was running fast. As such, the MCO was issued on 13.12.2011 with target date 20.12.2011 and the challenged meter was removed from the site and a new meter No.862582 was installed. Removed meter was packed and paper sealed under signatures of the complainant. The challenged meter was sent to ME Lab. through store challan dated 05.01.2012 and was checked and tested in the presence of complainant and its accuracy was found to be within limits. These facts were brought into the notice of the complainant and he was fully satisfied with the testing, but he did not deposit the actual consumption bill. Denying all other allegations, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4.           Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents before the District Forum, which after going through the same, dismissed the complaint.
5.           Aggrieved by this order, the appellant/complainant has come up in the appeal on the ground that the learned District Forum failed to consider the fact that there was no ME Lab. report, confirming that reading of the meter had not jumped. Whereas, the jumping of the meter reading was evident from the reading which increased from 3478 to 85847 in one month, which cannot be consumed during one month. Acceptance of appeal and the complaint was prayed.
6.           We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence proved on record.
7.           Admittedly, the disputed meter was installed at the premises of the complainant on 25.10.2010 and thereafter, the load of the connection of the complainant was extended from 10.70 KW to 21.40 KW. It is further the admitted case of the parties that the impugned bill dated 25.11.2011 (Ex.C-5) was issued for Rs.5,31,510/- for consumption of 82099 units, with old reading as 3748 recorded on 17.10.2011 and new reading as 85847 on 16.11.2011. It was far in excess of his average consumption. Scrutiny of his previous consumption data (Ex.R-3) reveals that monthly consumption of complainant varied between 300 units and 1234 units, whereas in the disputed bill, it was mentioned as 8200 units. It was further admitted by the OPs that the meter in question was challenged by the complainant by depositing the requisite meter challenge fee of Rs.450/- on the ground that it was running fast. No doubt, meter testing report (Ex.R-5 ) shows that when it was tested in the ME Lab. on 05.01.2012, its results were found to be within limits, but this report is silent about the fact that whether the meter reading had jumped or not. It was the duty of the OPs to get the meter tested, so as to ascertain whether the reading had actually jumped or not.  The OPs have themselves proved, the meter reading record as Ex.R-6, which confirms that the consumption of the complainant from July, 2010 to October, 2011 was never more than 958 units and further that the same was negligible for almost one year prior to the alleged jumping of reading of the meter. It was recorded as 2, 1, 8, 11, 109 units from June, 2011 to October, 2011 and suddenly, a consumption of 82099 units was recorded in November, 2011. Similarly, consumption during December, 2011 to March, 2012 was recorded as 1, 113, 14 and 14 units. The complainant has categorically contended that consumption of 82099 units could not have been recorded by the meter even if his sanctioned load is allowed to run for 24 hours a day for the entire month. Instead of justifying the exaggerated bills, OPs have taken the stand that the bill has been prepared as per the actual reading recorded by the meter and that its working was declared to be within limits during checking in the ME Lab. It has miserably failed to explain how 82099 units can be consumed in one month under any circumstances, especially when consumption prior to this consumption and, even thereafter, was negligible. Thus, the order of the District Forum is erroneous and deserves to be set aside.
8.           In view of above findings, the appeal of the appellant/ complainant is allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the impugned demand of Rs.5,31,510/- raised by the OPs, vide bill dated 25.11.2011 (Ex.C-5) is set aside.
9.           Arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.01.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
10.           The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

 

                                                               (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                    PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                       

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

January 29, 2015.                                                               

(Gurmeet S)