Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/17/2019

Surinder Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

In person

17 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM, SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

 

Consumer Complaint No.   17 of 07.03.2019

            Date of Decision            :  17.07.2019

 

Surinder Kumari wife of Sh. Ram Lubhaya, resident of Village and Post Office Barnala Kalan, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

….. Complainant

Versus

 

1.       The Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Office Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar through S.D.O.

2.       The Punjab State Electricity Board, Nawanshahr through XEN.

 

…Opposite parties

 

(Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER.

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :         Sh.Naresh Kumar, Auth. Rep.

For OPs                         :         Sh.G.S Garcha, Adv. Jr. counsel to Sh.S.S. Garcha, Advocate                                               

 

Per KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

1.                 The present complaint has filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs on the averments that she is subscriber of OPs and having domestic electric bearing no.3000418343 with 0.20 kw load. The above said connection situated at colony at Barnala Kalan District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, which was used for  storing wheat husk, but in this premises nobody reside. The consumption of  above-said electric connection is on minimum basis. The monthly bill issued by OPs for Rs.40-60 rupees only. She has been paying all electricity bills in time. The copy of bill no.1275518181155909 dated 18.06.2018 for payment of Rs.40/- is Ex.C-3 is attached with the complaint. It is pertinent to mention here that the meter of above electricity connection situated at long district in a box from the colony. This electricity connection used only for 10-15 minutes for the purpose of carrying wheat husk and other things and only bulb used for this purpose. The bills issued by OPs of above-said electricity connection on lower side according to consumption of electricity. She alleged that no information was given to her by OPs that when old meter was replaced with new one. She alleged that when she received four electricity bills from online, she knows that bill no.20088200818092542 dated 20.08.2018 issued by the Department/OPs on the basis of new consumption of 10059 instead of old consumption of 72 issued showing consumption of 9987 units and wrongly issued bill of Rs.86860/- to her. In the above said bill of Rs.86860/- meter no.10001511842 was shown. Bill No.20088211218143743 dated 21.10.2018 was issued for payment of Rs.91940/- by OPs showing the consumption of 1 unit and meter no.100010538096 was shown in this bill.  After that, OPs removed the old meter and affixed new meter themselves without any intimation to complainant and bill no.50009613495 dated 28.02.2019  for payment of Rs.98910/- was issued  and there was no meter shown. The OPs wrongly issued bills to complainant of large amount from 7-8 months regularly. But according to her consumption the bill of Rs.200/- should be issued to him.  This is a major lapse on the part of OPs and for this lapse on their part, OPs not issued previous bills to him. Earlier OPs issued bill dated 16.04.2018 in which old consumption of 70000 and new consumption of 72000 entered and showing consumption of 2000 units of 0.20 kw load, which was impossible.  OPs issued show cause notice no.501 dated 22.02.2019  and demanded to pay Rs.98744/-within 15 days. She approached OPs many times in this regard but of no use. She also visited the office of Sub Division Nawansharhr and XEN Nawanshahr in this regard but nothing was done by OPs towards her. Therefore, she filed the present complaint and prayed that OPs be directed to quash the bill issued by OPs on excess consumption instead of actual consumption. She further entitled for Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.

2.       Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has got no cause of action to file the complaint and complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum. On merits, it was averred that old meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No. 100007013288 on dated 26.11.2018. The old meter was packed in the presence of the complainant and Mandip Singh nephew of complainant signed the MCO report and gave written consent/NOC to OPs to check the meter in his absence. The meter in question was checked in the presence of XEN Enforcement Wing Nawanshahr, AE ME Lab Goraya and AE City PSPCL Nawanshahr. During checking, meter was found to be OK, vide store challan no. 142 dated 11.02.2019 so bill issued to her is correct and as per actual consumption of electricity. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.       The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of  Parvesh Kumar Taneja SDO/AAE of OPs as Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.

4.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case very minutely.

5.                The complainant has deposed her deposition in her affidavit Ex.CW-1/A on the record. She deposed that she was having domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. 3000418343 with load of 0.20 kw. She deposed that this connection used for only storing wheat-husk  and not for domestic purposes. The OPs issued bill no.20088200818092542  dated 20.08.2018  for payment of Rs.86860/- showing consumption of 9987 units instead of old consumption. After that, OPs removed the old meter and affixed new meter themselves without any intimation to complainant. Previously OPs also issued bill dated 16.04.2018  entering with old consumption of 70000 and new consumption 72000 and showing consumption of 2000 units wrongly because with load of 02.0 KW excess consumption is not possible.  Ex.C-1 is copy of Aadhar card of complainant Surinder Kumari on the record. Ex.C-2 is clippings of electricity meter where said meter was situated.  Ex.C-3 is clippings of place, where wheat-husk was placed. Ex.C-4 is copy of bill of electricity meter bearing A/c No. 3000418343 with load of 0.20 kw for payment of Rs.40/- only.  Ex.C-5 is copy of bill of A/c No.3000418343 for payment of Rs.86860/-. Ex.C-6 is copy of bill bearing A/c No.3000418343 for payment of Rs.91940/-. Ex.C-7 is copy of bill for payment of Rs.98910/-. Ex.C-8 is letter addressed to complainant by Assistant Engineer Urban Sub Division Nawanshahr regarding depositing the bill amount of Rs.98744/- within 15 days to the Department.  It was also mentioned in this application that if complainant is not satisfied with the payment of bill amount then she can file case with Dispute Settlement Committee under the supervision of Supertending Engineer (PSPCL) Garshankar Road, Nawanshahr. Ex.C-9 is receipt of bill amount of Rs.240/-. Ex.C-10 is photograph clipping regarding affixation of electric meter in the board. Affidavit of Naresh Kumar son of Ram Lubhaya resident of Village Barnala Kalan Tehsil and District Nawanshar placed on record in favour of the complainant. This witness deposed that OPs stated that the meter in question was changed in the presence of Mandip Singh relative of complainant. But this witness deposed that he do not know any Mandip Singh  and there is no person of namely Mandip Singh in their family. He also deposed that his uncle is having girls only and Mandip Singh is not his son.

6.                 To refute this evidence of the complainant, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Parvesh Kumar Taneja SDO/AEE Nawanshahr as Ex.OP-A on the record. He stated that old meter was packed in the presence of the complainant and Mandip Singh Nephew of complainant signed the MCO report and gave written consent/NOC to OPs to check the meter in his absence. Meter was checked in the presence of XEN Enforcement Wing Nawanshahr, AE ME Lab Goraya and AE PSPCL Nawanshahr. During the checking the meter was found OK, vide store challan no.142 dated 11.02.2019, therefore, bills issued to complainant is correct and for the actual consumption of electricity. Ex.OP-1 is job order for device replacement. Ex.OP-2 is letter addressed to PSPCL regarding checking of packed meter from inside and outside. Ex.OP-3 is copy of challan dated 11.02.2019.

7.                 From perusal of documents on the record and hearing respective pleadings of the parties, it has been transpired that two discrepancies are involved in the present case. One is OPs/PSPCL changed the meter of complainant without any prior intimation given to him and second is that OPs stated that old meter was packed in the presence of complainant and Mandip Singh nephew of the complainant signed the MCO report and he gave written consent/ NOC to OPs to check the meter. But on the contrary, Naresh Kumar son of Ram Lubhaya (husband of the complainant) has relied upon his affidavit in support of the case of the complainant. He denied this fact that disputed meter was changed in the presence of Mandip Singh or Mandip Singh has signed any MCO report and gave any written consent/NOC to OPs. He further stated that there is no person namely Mandip Singh in his family. He stated that he do not know Mandip Singh. He further stated that OPs in connivance with Mandip Singh prepared a faked report.

8.                 As per law of Hon’ble High Court in Chairman PSPCL and others versus Ms.Dia reported in RSA 5163 of 2017 decided on 17^th April 2018, wherein learned Single Judge of the High Court further referred to Rules 29, 44 and 46 of the Rules which are statutory in nature which require the electricity authorities to conduct periodical inspection of the lines maintained by them and to take all such safety measures to prevent accident and maintain the lines in such a manner that life and property of the general public is protected. The learned Single Judge has considered the position of law declared by this Court in a catena of cases for awarding compensation, particularly, the electrocution cases, and held the principle of "strict liability" and consequential negligence in awarding compensation in favour of the claimant against the State Electricity Board. This Court and the various High Courts such as the High Courts of Madras, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Kerala and Gujarat have awarded compensation to the victims of electrocution in exercise of the extraordinary and appellate jurisdiction, and have held that the Electricity Board/Supply Companies are duty-bound to take precautionary measures under the provisions of the Act. 

9.                 From perusal of above said citation, it is duty of OPs/PSPCL to take all such safety measures to prevent accident and maintain the lines in such a manner that life and property of the general public is protected. If old meter was changed with new one, then liability of OPs prior notice be given to consumer/complainant regarding his consent.

10.               According to PSPCL Rules consumers/complainants have a right to receive notice in writing before removal of old meter with new one and it is bounden duty of PSPCL/OPs to give prior notice to complainant/consumer before replacing of old meter with new one. OPs made allegation that meter was packed in the presence of complainant and his nephew Mandip Singh and said Mandip Singh gave consent/No Objection certificate to OPs. To the contrary, Naresh Kumar son of complainant has produced affidavit in support of the case of the complainant that he do not know Mandip Singh and there is no person namely Mandip Singh in his family. So OPs in connivance with unknown person prepared the faked report against complainant. The opposite parties issued bill dated 28.02.2019 for payment of Rs.98910/- to complainant, which is also wrong.

11.              In the light of our above discussion, we partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to quash the illegal demand of Ex.C-8, vide memo no. 501 dated 22.02.2019 amount of Rs.98744/- and further direct the OPs to issue fresh bill to complainant as per her actual consumption. The complainant is further entitled for Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.500/- as cost of litigation. The amount if, already deposited out of the disputed amount the same be adjusted in future consumption bills.

12.              The compliance of the order be made within a period of one month from receipt of certified of this order.

13.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

14.               Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated:

17.07.2019           (Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Kuljit Singh)

                                 Member                                  President