DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 297 of 9.12.2015

                                      Decided on:                    2.11.2017

Satish Kumar aged 50 years son of Sh.Parkash Chand resident of Cinema Road, Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Com Corp. Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Com Corp. Ltd.,Sub Division, Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Adv.counsel for the complainant.

                                      Sh.Pankaj Verma,Adv.counsel for the opposite parties.

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh.Satish Kumar, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.).

The ld.counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Naveet Gupta, SDO,Ex.OPB, affidavit of Sh.Jastej Singh Tiwana,SDO alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP9 and closed the evidence.

  7.          The complainant moved an application dated 30.3.2015, Ex.OP8, with the Ops, for the checking of the meter in question by the M.E. Lab, Patiala.The provisions of circular No.45/97 of PSEB, made it mandatory, on the part of the officials of the Corporation/Board to intimate the consumer to remain present in the M.E.Lab during the checking of the meter. In the case of Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Daljit Kaur 1(2004)CPJ 48, it was  held by the Hon’ble State Commission,  Punjab Chandigarh, that “circular No. 45/97 of PSEB requires that when a meter is removed for replacement, it must be got sealed, after having packed in a cardboard box and should be signed by the consumer and counter signed by the Board official. It also requires that consumer should be present at the time of the checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab.”  However, in the present case, the Ops have not placed on record any document by which  they intimated the complainant regarding the checking of the meter  in the M.E.Lab and the bill dated 28.3.2015 issued on the basis of the M.E.Lab report is liable to be quashed. Even as per regulation No.30.1.2, of ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CODE  OF 2014 , which is reproduced as under:

“The bill-cum -notice for arrear in the case of under assessment or the charges levied as a result of checking etc. shall be initially tendered separately and shall not be clubbed with the current electricity bill. The arrear bill- cum- notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrear alongwith the calculation details of such arrears. If the arrears are not cleared by the complainant such arrears shall be indicated regularly in the subsequent electricity bills. However, in case arrear bill is including in the current energy bill at the first instance, the distribution licensee shall not be entitled to take any punitive action against the consumer for non payment of such arrear amount alongwith the current energy bill” ,

the Ops were bound to issue a separate bill-cum-notice to the consumer, for recovery of the arrears, indicating the details therein but no such document has been placed on record by the Ops regarding issuance of separate bill-cum- notice to the complainant. As such the Ops by not intimating the complainant about the checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab  and by adding the arrear amount  in the regular electricity bill dated 30.11.2015 have violated their own rules and regulations. Thus the said bill dated 30.11.2015 is liable to be quashed.

7.          In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and quash the bill dated 28.3.2015 and  bill dated 30.11.2015, to the extent of sundry charges  of Rs.15982/- . The Ops are directed to issue a fresh bill to the complainant for the period from 20.1.2015 to 28.3.2015 on the basis of average of last six months consumption of electricity. It is further directed to the OPs that the amount if any deposited by the complainant be adjusted in the future bills. The Ops are also burdened with Rs.3000/-as costs to be paid to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to comply the order within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:2.11.2017       

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER