DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.474 of 14-10-2010 Decided on 09-03-2011
Sandeep Kumar, aged about 36 years, son of Sh.Bhagat Ram, resident of Mehna Chowk, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Bathinda, through its S.E. Punjab State power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Civil Line, Bathinda, through its S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala, through its Secretary.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Mahesh Chaudhary, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.D.S.Brar, counsel for opposite party Nos.1&2. Opposite party No.3 exparte.
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 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding electric connection bearing No.B12KM600292N vide meter No.4323346, the meter of the complainant was running fast and on the request of the complainant, the opposite parties replaced it with new meter bearing No.1435691 in the month of July, 2010. The complainant received a bill dated 30.07.2010 in which, the amount has been mentioned as Rs.15,570/-. The consumption of 954 units in the old meter has been shown. The total consumption of units was of 1025 units. The bill of June, 2010 was for the consumption of 1862 units and for the month of April, 184 units. The complainant had moved an application to the opposite party No.2 for change of meter and the meter was changed by the opposite party No.2 but the proper procedure has not been followed. The report of ME Lab has shown that the earlier meter No.4323346 is dead whereas the meter status on the bill was shown as 'O'. The complainant moved an application for making the necessary corrections and get deposit the actual bill but the opposite parties have paid no heed to the request of the complainant. As per ME Lab report, the meter was dead but the opposite parties have been showing consumed units in the bills for that period. The complainant has further alleged that the report of ME Lab bearing memo No.4741 dated 31.08.2010 has been showing the test report of two meters, according to one report, the meter is running fast and according to other report, the meter is dead. The complainant has alleged that there is possibility of interchanging of meters by mistake. The complainant has also sent an application dated 14.09.2010 to redress his grievance but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint with prayer to rectify the bill as per actual consumption and he is ready to pay the bill according to actual consumption. 2. The opposite party Nos.1&2 have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the new meter bearing No.1435691 was installed in the premises of the complainant on 22.06.2010 and not in the month of July 2010 as alleged by the complainant. At the time of changing of the old meter with new meter, the reading was 7997 units and thereafter the new meter was installed with its reading at 2 units. On 03.07.2010, it had reading of 73 units when noted down by the meter reader. In this way, the complainant had made consumption of 954 units as per his old meter and 71 units as per his new meter and as such, he was issued electricity bill for the consumption of 1025 units. The opposite party Nos.1&2 further pleaded that if the consumption of one cycle is less that does not mean, the consumption of other cycle would also be less. The meter was showing 'O' status but when the meter was dead, it was reported accordingly by the ME Lab. The ME Lab report was correct and there is no ambiguity in it. The opposite party No.3 despite service of summon has failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, exparte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.3. 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 his old meter bearing No.4323346 was running fast and he requested the opposite parties for replacement of the said meter; the same was changed by the opposite parties with meter bearing No.1435691 in the month of July, 2010. On 30.07.2010, the bill of Rs.15,570/- was issued to the complainant showing 954 units as old units and the total consumption of 1025 units. In earlier bill for the month of June 2010, the consumption was shown as of 1862 units and for the month of April, the consumption has been shown as 184 units. The old removed meter was sent to ME Lab and in the ME Lab, the meter had been reported as dead whereas the status of the meter was 'OK'. The complainant approached the opposite parties for necessary corrections and to get deposit the actual bill but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to his request. The learned counsel for the complainant has further pleaded that there were two meters in the ME Lab, it may be possible that the testing report of two meters have been interchanged, one report says that the meter is running fast and the other report says that the meter is dead. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1&2 has submitted that the meter was changed and new meter bearing No.1435691 was installed in the premises of the complainant on 22.06.2010 and not in the month of July 2010. On 22.06.2010, when the old meter was changed with new meter, the reading of old meter was 7997 units at the time of its changing; thereafter, the new meter was installed with its reading at 2 units. On 03.07.2010, it had reading of 73 units when it was recorded by the concerned staff, the complainant had consumer 954 units as per his old meter and 71 units as per his new meter and accordingly the electricity bill was issued to the complainant for the consumption of 1025 units. 7. A perusal of Ex.C-4 shows that the complainant is defaulter and meter status is OK; meter No.1435691; consumption of new meter is 73 units whereas the consumption of old meter 954 units. The opposite parties have raised a bill for 1025 units for the amount of Rs.15,570/-. 8. A perusal of Ex.R-2 which is MCO dated 11.05.2010 shows that when the meter was changed, the reading was 7997 units and it has been written that the old reading was 7043 units and new meter reading was 7997 units. Hence, the consumption after subtracting 7043 from 7997 units, comes to 954 units. The meter has already been changed with new meter bearing No.1435691. The demand of Rs.15,570/- has been issued on account of consumed units and not on the basis of ME Lab report. It has been calculated as per consumed units only which the opposite parties are liable to recover from the complainant. 9. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the old meter bearing No.4323346, some times showing the meter status is 'O' and some time 'L' but the in the bill dated 30.07.2010, the meter status is 'E' and the complainant is defaulter. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 09-03-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
