Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/101/2014

mohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCLTD - Opp.Party(s)

Sh TS Dhiman

06 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                                              Consumer Complaint No.101 of 2014

                                                                                                                               Date of institution:  28.07.2014                                                                                                                                                      Date of decision  :   06.08.2015

Mohan Singh son of Sarban Singh resident of village Jawandha, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

 

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., the Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/Secretary.
2. Sub Division Office Morinda(Rural), PSPCL, through its S.D.O.
3. Senior Executive Engineer Kharar, PSPCL, through its Xen.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                   Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :        Sh.T.S.Dhiman, Adv. Cl. for the complainant                                             Sh. M.P.S.Batra, Adv. Cl. for the OPs.

 

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                      Complainant Mohan Singh son of Sarban Singh resident of village Jawandha, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                    The complainant is having electricity connection bearing A/c No.R64RP110171A, which is running in the shop of the complainant i.e. Atta Chaki and the complainant is running Atta Chaki for earning his livelihood. The complainant is regularly paying the electricity charges to the opposite parties regarding the consumption of electricity and has never made default of the opposite parties. The complainant was shocked when the OPs issued an illegal, null and void provisional notice/memo No.976, dated 28.05.2014 for demanding Rs. 23,262/- and the said amount was extended from Rs.23,262/- to 25,172/-, which is not binding upon the complainant. The complainant filed an application/objection on 17.06.2014 and the same was received by the OPs through receipt No.655 dated 18.06.2014. It is further stated that the alleged checking was never conducted by the officials of the opposite parties and the meter was intact and properly sealed. The complainant never tampered the same as the same was fixed in a box outside the premises of the complainant. It is further stated that the meter was never sealed and packed in the presence of the complainant and he was never called at the ME Lab. Therefore, the report of ME Lab is not binding upon the complainant. Moreover, the average bill of the old meter and new meter are same. It is clear from the consumption of the old meter and new meter that there is no fault in the old meter, which was removed by the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part and the complainant suffered physical and mental agony. The complainant so many times visited the office of the opposite party No.2 and 3 and requested them to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.25,172/- but they did not listen to the genuine requests of the complainant. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs not to recover Rs.25,172/- and further directed to pay Rs.20,000/-, as damages/compensation and litigation cost.

3.                   The complaint is contested by the opposite parties, who filed joint written reply. In reply to the complaint the opposite parties stated that the electricity connection in question is SP category connection used by the complainant for commercial purpose. Therefore, the complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’. It is further stated that as per instructions vide memo No.1137/40 dated 23.01.2014 issued to all the Xen’s, Ropar, the electric connection having category MS, SP and III phase having KWH meter in their premises and these meters were replaced with KWH and KVAH reading meters. As per the said instructions the electric meter of the complainant was replaced with the new meter vide MCO No. 84/50668 dated 14.03.2014 in the presence of complainant. The replaced meter was duly packed and sealed as per the rules and regulations of the PSPCL. Thereafter, Sukhwinder Singh, concerned JE, taken the replaced meter along with other meters for checking, which were duly checked in the ME Lab, Ropar, vide store challan No. 495 dated 20.05.2014 along with other III phase meters. At the time of checking, it was found that one phase of the meter of the complainant was dead and actual consumption was not recorded on the meter. On the checking report, the office of the SDO, PSPCL Sub Urban Morinda, overhaul the account of the complainant and issued notice memo No.976 dated 28.05.2014 of Rs.23262/- to the complainant and also send calculation sheet to the complainant. The complainant is bound to pay the amount mentioned in the notice and also Rs.1910/- as dead meter costs. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                   In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of reply to notice Ex. C-2, copy of letter dated 28.05.2014 Ex. C-3, copy of bills Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered affidavit of Balbir Singh SDO, Ex. OP-1, affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh, JE, Ex. OP-2, certified copy of instructions Ex.OP-3, certified copy of MCO Ex. OP-4, certified copy of checking report Ex. OP-5, certified copy of notice Ex. OP-6, certified copy of calculation sheet Ex. OP-7 and closed the evidence.

5.                   The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the OPs had never changed the said meter in his presence and nor was the complainant called at the ME Lab. The ld. counsel stated that OPs have not produced any such documents showing the presence of the complainant at the time of changing of meter nor at the time of checking of the said meter. The ld. counsel argued that the OPs have failed to produce any evidence against the complainant stating that the said meter had been tempered by the complainant. He further argued that the fault in the said meter, could be due to manufacturing defect and the complainant cannot be held liable for the same. The ld. counsel pleaded that the average bill of the old meter had always been same from the date of its installation. The ld. counsel submitted that there is nothing to prove on record, that the said fault occurred in the meter was due to tempering done by the complainant and stated that the bill i.e Ex.C6 deserves to be set aside.

6.                   On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has stated that the OPs had acted as per the prescribed procedure and instructions as the same is evident from the evidence placed on record by the OPs. The ld. counsel submitted that as per the prescribed procedure the said meter was replaced and sent to the ME lab for checking. He also submitted that at the time of checking one phase of the meter was found dead, as it is evident from checking report i.e Ex.OP-5. The ld. counsel argued that in view of the checking report the account of the complainant was overhauled and notice for payment of Rs.23262/- alongwith calculation sheet was sent to the complainant and the same are Ex.OP-6 and Ex. OP-7.

7.                   After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we are of the view that the OPs have proceeded as per the Rules and Regulations of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. as the same is evident from Ex-OP3 to Ex-OP7 but the OPs have failed to prove whether the said meter was replaced and checked in the presence of the complainant. Moreover there is no such evidence to prove that the said meter was tempered by the complainant. We agree with the submission of the ld. counsel for the complainant that possibility of manufacturing defect cannot be ruled out, as the average bill of the old meter had always been same from the date of its installation, as evident from the bills i.e Ex-C4 to Ex-C8.

8.                   Accordingly in view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant was not present at the time of replacement and checking of the said meter. The OPs have also failed to prove that the said meter was tempered by the complainant and the possibility of manufacturing defect cannot be ignored keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, we are of the opinion that the OPs had negligently imposed the charges of Rs.25172/- upon the complainant as mentioned in Ex-OP7 and direct the OPs to only charge Actual Consumption Charges. The present complaint is partly accepted. Parties to bear their own cost.

9.                   The arguments on the complaint were heard on 05.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.    

Pronounced                                                                                             Dated: 06.08.2015

(A.P.S.Rajput)               President

 

                                                                               (Veena Chahal)                                                                                            Member

 

(A.B.Aggarwal)             Member