Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/113

Surjeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Jatinder Marria

29 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT                  

                                                    C. C. No :              113 of 2018

Date of Institution :        2.07.2018

Date of Decision :        29.05.2019

Surjit Kaur aged about 67 years w/o Late Jujhar Singh son of Tilok Singh r/o Street No. 8 (L), Dogar Basti, Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman cum Managing Director.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Op. City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Faridkot.                                 

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh  Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Jatinder Marria, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to

cc no.- 113 of 2018

withdraw the illegal demand of  sundry charges and compounding charges raised vide notice dt 22.02.2018  and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she is having electric connection bearing a/c no DB-66-174 installed at her premises and it is in the name of her husband who has expired and after the death of her husband, complainant has been using the same and paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards her. Old meter of complainant was replaced and new computerized meter was installed in its place outside her premises and it is duly locked and sealed and she has no access to that. Old meter was taken away by OPs in unsealed and unpacked condition. It is further submitted that complainant received a notice no.1998  dated 22.02.2018 vide which OPs alleged that her meter was tampered and they imposed penalty of Rs.26,355/- and also demanded Rs.12,000/-as compounding charges under section 152 of Electricity Act, which is totally illegal and unlawful. Amount raised by Ops is highly excessive. It is prayed that meter of complainant remained in the custody of OPs and she had no access to that. Even meter of complainant was not checked in her presence in ME Lab and no proof of ME Lab checking is given to her. It is further contended that these charges are raised without giving any prior notice or detail thereof. On receiving the notice, complainant approached Ops and requested them to withdraw the excessive demand

cc no.- 113 of 2018

of sundry and compounding charges, but they did not pay any heed to hear her genuine requests and flatly refused to withdraw the same. OP-2 threatened to disconnect her electric connection, if she fails to pay the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to her for which she has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw this demand of sundry and compounding charges and also prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                           Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 4.07.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                               On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement wherein took preliminary objections that complainant is not the consumer of answering OPs as connection in question is in the name of Jujhar Singh and complainant has not given any intimation regarding death of her husband to them. She has also not submitted A & A form alongwith death certificate of her husband, succession certificate and no objection from other legal heirs of Jujhar Singh for getting transferred the said connection in her own name.  There was bilateral contract between original consumer and Ops but

cc no.- 113 of 2018

complainant has not entered into any contract with them and therefore as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, she is not the consumer of OPs. However, on merits OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that notice number 1998 dated 22.02.2018 is issued by them as per rules and regulations of PSPCL. It is averred that as per procedure of PSPCL, all removed meters are sent to ME Lab where before accepting these meters, ME Lab checks whether these meters are tampered or not. It is admitted that removed meter of complainant was also sent to ME Lab alongwith other removed meters where after checking it was found that meter of complainant was tampered. On opening the meter cover, meter was checked internally and it was found that current foil was cut and its consumption was being controlled by complainant. Competent authority declared it a case of theft under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003. Meter was sealed packed and handed over to JE Sub Division, Faridkot for keeping the same in safe custody and then, checking report was prepared and all persons present there signed the same and on receipt of Checking Report dated 21.02.2018 from M E Lab, penalty of Rs.26,235/- was imposed due to the theft of power and Rs,12,000/-were charged as compounding charges. It is asserted that amount charged by them is as per Checking Report of M E Lab and as per rules and regulations of OPs and there is no irregularity in it. Complainant is liable to pay this amount and they have every right to recover the same. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and

cc no.- 113 of 2018

incorrect. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                     Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-11 and closed the same.

6                                    In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                    We have heard the ld counsel for complainant and Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                               From the careful perusal of documents and evidence placed on record and after going through the arguments advanced by complainant counsel, it is observed that case of the complainant is that electric connection of complainant is in the name of her husband and after the death of her husband, complainant has been using the same and paying all the bills regularly and nothing is due towards her. Old meter of complainant was replaced and new computerized meter was installed in its place outside her premises and it is duly locked and sealed and she has no access to that.  Electric  meter  of  complainant  was   replaced   by  OPs  with  computerized  meter  and  old  meter  was

cc no.- 113 of 2018

taken away by OPs in unsealed and unpacked condition. Complainant received a notice no.1998  dated 22.02.2018 vide which OPs imposed penalty of Rs.26,355/- and also demanded Rs.12,000/-as compounding charges under section 152 of Electricity Act, on account of tampering of her meter. Ld counsel for complainant stressed on the point that meter of complainant was removed and taken away by OPs in unsealed and unpacked condition and it remained in the custody of Ops and she had no access to that and even no notice regarding checking in ME Lab was ever issued to her. It is further argued that checking in ME Lab was not done in the presence of complainant or any of her representatives. It was done without any intimation to her and without her consent. Amount raised by Ops is highly excessive and is illegal and she is not liable to pay the same. These charges are raised without giving any prior notice or detail thereof. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests, Ops refused to withdraw the demand of sundry and compounding charges, rather threatened to disconnect her connection if she fails to pay this amount in time. All this caused harassment and mental agony to her. Ld counsel for complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-11. On the other hand in reply, plea taken by OPs is that complainant is not their consumer as said connection is in the name of Jujhar Singh and complainant has neither given any intimation regarding death of her husband Jujhar Singh to them nor she has submitted A & A form alongwith death certificate of her husband, succession certificate and no

cc no.- 113 of 2018

objection from other legal heirs of Jujhar Singh for getting transferred the said connection in her own name and  as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, she is not their consumer. OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being incorrect and  admitted that notice dated 22.02.2018 is issued by them on the basis of checking report given by M E Lab. It is argued that as per procedure of PSPCL, all removed meters are sent to ME Lab where before accepting these meters, ME Lab checks whether these meters are tampered or not. It is also admitted that removed meter of complainant was sent to ME Lab where after checking it was found tampered. On opening the meter cover, meter was checked internally and it was found that current foil was cut and its consumption was being controlled by complainant. It was declared theft case under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003. Meter was then sealed packed and handed over to JE Sub Division, Faridkot for keeping the same in safe custody and then, checking report was prepared and on the basis of Checking Report dated 21.02.2018 of M E Lab, penalty of Rs.26,235/- was imposed for  theft of power and Rs,12,000/-were charged as compounding charges and there is no irregularity in it. Complainant is liable to pay this amount and they entitled to recover the same. They have denied all the other allegations and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                                                   So far as first objection of Ops is that the connection in question is installed in the name of Jhujhar Singh and thus, complainant is not their consumer and therefore, she cannot

cc no.- 113 of 2018

file the present complaint against them and therefore, complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed. Complainant has specifically pleaded in para no. 1 of the complaint that being widow of Jhujhar Singh, she has been using the said connection since after his death and being beneficiary, she is consumer of OPs and is entitled to file the present complaint. To support this version,  Ld Counsel for complainant has put reliance on citation 1999 (2) CLT (134) Joginder Singh Vs PSEB wherein our Hon’ble State Commission held that not only the actual person who hires the services of OPs is to be considered as consumer under Consumer Protection Act, but also the beneficiary of such contract of hiring the services of OPs. In the present complaint also, the complainant has been using the electricity connection in question being widow of Jhujhar Singh as its beneficiary user. Therefore, complainant is authorized and fully falls within the definition of consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

10                                         The opposite party has not placed on record any documentary evidence to show that the electric meter of the complainant was removed, packed and sealed in the presence and under signatures of the complainant or his representative. Electric meter in question was never checked in the M.E. Lab in the presence of the complainant or her representative. Therefore, it is crystal clear that no procedure framed under the Rules and Regulations of the P.S.P.C.L, has been adopted by the opposite parties regarding removing, packing, sealing and checking of the  replaced electric meter in the M.E. Lab and

cc no.- 113 of 2018

thereafter raising the demand arising out of the said checking, if any. As per regulations no.55. Replacement of Meters/Metering Equipment : 55.1 Single Phase Electromechanical Meters : E/M Meters removed from the consumer premises on replacement with the electronic meters shall be returned to M E Labs without any other formality and ME Labs will not carry out any checking/testing of these meters except in case of disputed meters. In case of disputed meters removed under code – G, M & R (glass broken, meter burnt & ME seals broken) and in cases where there is sufficient evidence of theft /tampering etc at the time of removal, the JE concerned shall record his observation on the MCO itself and such meters shall be packed and sealed in the presence of consumers for further checking in M E Labs in his presence. Further as per regulation no. 21.4 (d) : In case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the Licensee’s laboratory, the consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing atleast seven days in advance. The signature of the consumer, or his authorized representative, if present would be obtained on the Test Result Sheet and a copy thereof supplied to consumer. He further argued that moreover, as per their own regulations, OPs can not charge the dues relating to previous period without issuing a separate bill giving complete detail of the charges levied. Copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied should also be supplied to consumer but in the present case, no separate bill or notice giving complete detail of the amount charged or period of the amount, ever issued to the complainant. So, as per their

cc no.- 113 of 2018

own regulations and instructions, OPs were required to issue notice to complainant before getting conducted the checking of meter in the M E Lab and checking was required to be done in the presence of complainant or her representative, but in present case, they did not issue any notice to complainant prior to checking of meter of complainant inME Lab and now, OPs can not demand this amount on the basis of checking in ME Lab which was done without any notice or consent of complainant. Ld Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity supply Instruction Manual of OPs where regulation no. 93 is regarding payment of arrears not originally billed. Our Hon’ble High Court has also opined in Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is required before imposing the penalty and an order about person who was likely to be affected thereby. Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case.  Further as per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not charge any amount of previous dues or arrears without giving any supplementary bill or notice giving complete detail of charges and also giving copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied. They can not demand sundry charges and compounding charges from complainant on the basis of checking  in M E Lab, which is not done in the presence of complainant.

11                                        In the light of above discussion and arguments advanced by parties and case law produced by the

cc no.- 113 of 2018

complainant, we are fully convinced with complainant and she has succeeded in proving this case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to withdraw the notice no.1998 dated 22.02.2018 for sundry charges and compounding charges charged on account of  alleged checking of her meter in M.E. Lab. OPs are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.10,000/- if any, deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 4.07.2018 passed by this Forum in subsequent bills.  Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 29.05.12019

 

(Parampal Kaur)                          (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                            President