Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/114/2014

bhupinder singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCORP LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Stnam Singh

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                      Consumer Complaint No.114 of 2014

                                                            Date of institution:  21.08.2014                    

                                                           Date of decision  :   12.10.2015

Bhupinder Singh son of Sh. Arur Singh, resident of village Rampur Nau Abad, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/Secretary.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer (Rural), Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. X.E.N., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Sh. D.R.Arora, President                                                          

        Sh. A.B.Aggarwal, Member

Present :        None  for the complainant                           

                       Sh. Sumit Gupta, Adv. Cl. for the OPs.

 

ORDER

By D.R.Arora, President

                           It is alleged by the complainant that he was holding a domestic electricity connection bearing account No. K52SG321103N installed at his house in village Rampur Nau Abad, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. The electricity meter installed at the said connection was removed and in place thereof a new meter was installed and the account number thereof is GT52/0052. It was assured that the meter will be got checked in the presence of the complainant but the same was never got checked in his presence. On 25.06.2014, the complainant had visited the office of SDO, PSPCL, M.E. Sub Division, Mandi Gobindgarh in connection with the checking of the old meter but on that day the same was not checked. The presence of the complainant was marked by the S.D.O. The OPs sent  letter No.1387 dated 08.07.2014, whereby he was required to appear in the M.E. Lab at Mandi Gobindgarh at 10:30 A.M. and said letter was received by the complainant on 11.07.2014 at 5:00 P.M. Then the complainant received Memo No.1539 dated 28.07.2014, vide which he was informed that the meter was found running slow and he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.16,650/- with the OPs.

2.                   The complainant has challenged the said memo on the ground that he never tampered with the meter nor did he commit any theft of electricity in any manner. He was never caught committing theft of the energy by the OPs and therefore, the report of the M.E. Lab is illegal, null and void and is not binding upon the complainant. Moreover, at the time of the removal of the meter the same was not sealed in the presence of the complainant nor he was called at the time of the checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab. The Reader also never reported in the meter reading register about the alleged tampering of the meter. Moreover, claim of the OPs is barred by time as the old meter was removed by the OPs on 02.06.2010.

3.                   The complainant visited the OPs many a times and requested to withdraw the memo dated 28.07.2014 but they made a refusal, which amounts to a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and therefore, the complainant is entitled to be compensated in a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony experienced  by him. Accordingly, the complainant brought this complaint against the OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “Act”) for a direction to the OPs to set aside the memo No. 1539 dated 28.07.2014 regarding the recovery of Rs.16,650/- and to award him Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and further to award Rs.30,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

4                    On notice the OPs appeared and filed their written version having raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainant has got no locus standi/cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant is estopped in filing the complaint by his act and conduct and that the complaint being false, frivolous and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed. As regards the facts of the complaint, the OPs have not denied the complainant being the holder of the domestic connection bearing account No. K52SG321103N (old number). As per the report of the Meter Reader the electricity meter of the complainant was defective and the same was replaced vide MCO No.078 dated 13.05.2010 and the same was sent to M.E. Lab, vide challan No.21 dated 15.05.2014 through Er. Devinder Singh, Additional SDO for being checked.  Notice No.994 dated 14.05.2014 was sent to the consumer for coming present in the M.E. Lab on 15.05.2014 but the complainant failed to come present. Thereafter also the OPs had sent two other notices to the complainant but the complainant failed to turn up before the M.E. Lab. Thereafter, two more registered notices were sent to the complainant but to no effect. Ultimately the OPs got the meter checked from the M.E. Lab on 24.07.2014 in the absence of the consumer and as per report of the M.E. Lab, the meter was found running slow by 67.78% as per LCR No.26/3703 dated 24.07.2014. After the meter was got checked from the M.E. Lab the OPs had sent the registered notice to the complainant for depositing an amount of Rs.16,650/- but instead of depositing the amount, the complaint brought this complaint. After controverting the other allegations of the complainant, going against the OPs, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.                   In support of his complaint the complainant produced in evidence Ex. C-9, his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex. C-8 and he closed his evidence. On the other hand on behalf of the OPs their counsel tendered in evidence Ex. OP-1, the sworn affidavit of Er. Amandeep Singh Dhindsa, SDO, Sub Division, Sirhind, Rural, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib along with documents Ex. OP-2 to OP-15 and closed their evidence.

6.                   The complainant filed the written arguments, whereas the counsel for the OPs suffered the statement that his written version and the evidence led by the OPs may be read as written arguments on behalf of the OPs.

7.                   None appeared today on behalf of the complainant. On the last date also none had appeared on behalf of the complainant. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the OPs and gone through the evidence on record.

 

8.                   Ex. OP-2 is the copy of the M.C.O. No.078 dated 13.05.2010 effected on 02.06.2010, vide which meter No.2891359 was removed and new meter No.774746 was installed, a fact admitted by the complainant in para No.3 of the same.

9.                   The plea taken up by the complainant is that the meter was never got checked by the OPs from the M.E. Lab in his presence. Of course, this is admitted by the complainant in para No.3 of the complaint that he had visited the M.E. Sub Division, Mandi Gobindgarh on 25.06.2014 in connection with the checking of the meter but on that day the meter was not checked. Ex. OP-13 is the copy of the report dated 24.07.2014 regarding the checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab at Gobindgarh and same also includes at Sr. No.5 the checking of the meter No.2891359 of the complainant Sh. Bhupinder Singh. The said report does not bear any signatures of the complainant.

10.                 It was submitted by Sh. Sumit Gupta, the Ld. counsel for the OPs, that the complainant had been sent the notices Ex. OP-3 to OP-5 dated 04.05.2014, 27.05.2014 and 18.07.2014, but the notice Ex. OP-5 was reported to be refused by the complainant, whereas the notice Ex. OP-4 was delivered while no report is made on Ex. OP-3. However, there is positive evidence, to have been led by the OPs regarding the sending of the notice, vide memo No.1254 dated 18.06.2014 Ex. OP-6 to the complainant through registered post and also notice No.1387 dated 08.07.2014 Ex. OP-7, which had also been sent through registered post as would appear from the copy of the dispatch register Ex. OP-9 and Ex. OP-10 also bearing the prints of the postal receipts dated 18.06.2014 and 08.07.2014 but despite the notices having been sent to the complainant he had not turned up in the M.E. Lab on 25.06.2014 and 10.07.2014, the two dates mentioned in the notices Ex. OP-6 and Ex. OP-7. Therefore, the OPs had no alternative except to get the meter checked from the M.E. Lab in the absence of the complainant.

11.                 We are of the considered view that a due intimation was given to the complainant regarding the checking of the meter in M.E. Lab through registered post for 25.06.2014 and then for 10.07.2014 but the complainant failed to turn up. As a matter of fact, the complainant was very much aware about the OPs having approached the M.E. Lab in the matter of getting the meter checked as once the complainant had appeared in the M.E. Lab on 25.06.2014 as averred in para No.3 of the complaint but on account of one and other reasons the meter was not checked on that date. Therefore, we have to accept the plea of the OPs that a due intimation regarding the checking of the meter was given to the complainant but he had avoided to appear in the M.E. Lab.

12.                 Now coming to the demand of Rs.16,650/- raised by OP No.2, vide memo No.1539 dated 28.07.2014 on account of the meter having been found slow by 67.78% as per the report of M.E. Lab No.26/3703 dated 24.07.2014 Ex. C-8. The OPs have produced Ex. OP-14 the calculation sheet but the same pertains to the period November 2013 to February 2014.  It is provided under regulation 21.5.1 of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007( for short “ the Regulations”),

 21.5.1: “ Inaccurate Meters.

If a consumer meter on testing is found to be beyond the limits of accuracy as prescribed hereunder, the account of the consumer shall be overhauled and the electricity charges for all categories of consumers shall be computed in accordance with the said test results for a period not exceeding six months immediately preceding the:

1. date of test in case the meter has been tested at site to the satisfaction of the consumer or replacement of inaccurate meter whichever is later; or
2. date the defective meter is removed for testing in the laboratory of the distribution licensee.”

Thus under Regulation 21.5.1 the OPs have to overhaul the account of the complainant for the period of six months and that too immediately preceding the removal of the meter, which was removed on 02.06.2010 but surprisingly the OPs instead of overhauling the account for the period of six months immediately preceding the date of the removal of the meter have made the calculations for the period November 2013 to February 2014 as would appear from the calculation sheet Ex. OP-14, which cannot be upheld by this Forum.

13.                 Here, it is also important to note that the meter was removed vide MCO Ex. OP-2 dated 13.05.2010, on 02.06.2010 but the OPs failed to get the meter checked from the M.E. Lab within a period of 15 days from the removal of the meter, as provided under Regulation No.21.3.6 Clause(e) of the Regulations and rather got the same checked only on 10.07.2014 i.e. after a period of 3 years and 11 months. We really fail to understand as to why the OPs had not got the meter checked from the M.E. Lab within the prescribed time of one month. The OPs thus violated the provisions contained under the Regulation 21.5.1 of the Regulations, to the detriment of the interest of the OPs. May that as it be, the demand of Rs.16,650/- raised by OPs, vide memo No.1539 dated 28.07.2014 Ex. C-8 cannot be upheld and the same is hereby set aside. Consequently, we accept the complaint and direct the OPs not to recover the amount of Rs.16,650/- of the said memo. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted  with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-, which is inclusive of the amount of compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant as a result of the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

14                  The order be complied by the OPs within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.          

Pronounced                                                                                             Dated: 12.10.2015

(D.R.Arora)                                       President

 

                                                                      (A.B.Aggarwal)                                                                                   Member