BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 28 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 18.03.2008<br /> Date of Service: 03.04.2008<br /> Decided On: 07.08.2008<br /> <br /> Amarjit Kaur daughter of Sh.Mal Singh resident of village: Chuhar Chak, Distt.Moga.<br /> <br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Moga.<br /> 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Ajitwal, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.<br /> <br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Satinder Sharma, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv. counsel for OPs.<br /> <br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Smt.Amarjit Kaur complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary and others-opposite parties (herein-after referred to as ‘Board’) directing them to restore the electric meter installed at her residence which was forcibly and illegally removed by the OPs-Board and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, the complainant is NRI and about 6 months ago she purchased a house at village: Chuhar Chak, Distt.Moga. In October 2007 she applied for installation of electric connection at her residence with OPs-Board and deposited Rs.2140/- vide receipt no. 80475 dated 16.10.2007. That the OPs-Board installed the electric meter no.73/2036 in the house of the complainant. That on 15.3.2008 at 3 P.M. officials of the OPs-Board visited her premises and threatened that she got installed meter illegally in her house and removed the meter. However, the complainant explained him that she got installed the meter as per rules and regulations, but to no effect. Thereafter, he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2000/-. That on refusal to pay the illegal gratification, the said official called some other employees of the OPs-Board and they all taken away the electric meter of complainant forcibly. That the complainant asked them to show any document and to give receipt of the removal meter. On persuasion, at the same time the officials of the OPs-Board namely Sukhdev Singh Lineman and Major Singh Lineman put their signatures on blank papers. That the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board number of times and requested to restore the electric connection, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to the complainant for which she has claimed Rs.50000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.S.K.Dhir Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. In fact, in the residential premises of the complainant, earlier one connection bearing account no.CF73/1399 was installed in the name of Sukhdev Singh son of Buta Singh. But lateron, due to non payment of the defaulting amount, said connection was permanently disconnected. The complainant subsequently purchased the aforesaid defaulting premises and managed to got installed a new electric meter baring account no. CF73/2036. On 5.2.2008 Sukhdarshan Singh, J.E of OPs-Board visited the premises of the complainant for making recovery of defaulting amount of Rs.27722/- in respect of earlier connection no.CF73/1399 in the name of Sukhdev Singh. Only then he came to know the installation of new connection bearing no.CF73/2036 in the name of complainant. Said official reported to transfer the defaulting amount of Rs.27722/- to the account no.CF73/2036 of present complainant. That notice no.301 dated 5.2.2008 was served upon the complainant to deposit the impugned amount within one week but the family members of the complainant refused to receive the notice. Consequently, the electric supply of electric connection no.CF73/2036 of complainant was permanently disconnected vide PDCO dated 8.2.2008 effected on 15.3.2008 under the rules and regulations of the PSEB. On merits, the OPs-Board took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them on the preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.<br /> 4. In order to prove her case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.A1, copy of receipt Ex.a2, copy of signing receipt Ex.A3, copy of application Ex.A4 and closed her evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.S.S.Sandhu, Sr.Executive Engineer, copy of PDCO Ex.R2, copy of letter Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4, affidavit of Sukhdarshan Singh J.E. Ex.R5, copy of PDCO Ex.R6, details of bills Ex.R7 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Satinder Sharma ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.K.Dhir ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. The main controversy in this case is with regard to bills dated 29.09.2007, 27.11.2007 and 01.02.2008 of Sukhdev Singh consumer can be recovered from Amarjit Kaur complainant. The answer to this question is in affirmative. Admittedly, Sukhdev Singh son of Buta Singh got installed connection no.CF73/1399 in the same premises where Amarjit Kaur complainant got installed connection no.CF73/2036. On this point, the ruling 2007(1) Civil Court Cases, Page 578 (SC), titled as Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Paramount Polymers Pvt.Ltd. is quite applicable to the facts of the present case.<br /> 8. The next point for determination is whether the OPs-Board can charge Sukhdev Singh taking the average of 3160, 2801 and 2575 units respectively. The answer to this question is in negative. It is admitted case that earlier the connected load of connection no.CF73/1399 in the name of Sukhdev Singh was 0.460 KW, but it was enhanced to 4.720 KW on 30.05.2007. His meter was found burnt on 3.8.2007 and the bills were sent to him on the average basis charging 3160 units for 29.9.2007, 2801 units for 27.11.2007 and 2575 units for 1.2.2008 i.e. on the prorata basis mentioned in regulation no. 73.1.2. The OPs-Board can charge the complainant for arrears of connection no.CF73/1399 in the name of Sukhdev Singh from the account of the complainant of electric connection installed in the same premises. <br /> 9. Admittedly, after the enhancement of the load on 30.5.2007 only one bill was issued to Sukhdev Singh for the period w.e.f. 7.5.2007 to 2.7.2007 of 830 units (2700 new reading -1870 old reading) amounting to Rs.4360/- which has been duly paid by the complainant/ Sukhdev Singh on 13.8.2007. For further bills, the OPs-Board charged the complainant/ Sukhdev Singh on prorata basis for the period 9/2007 to 2/2008 (during the period the meter remained burnt and bills were sent on average basis). However, under regulation 73.1.2 the OPs-Board was required to take the average consumption of last 4 to 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year of the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher. Regulation 73.1.2 provides that <br /> “So far as charging the consumer for the period the meter remained inoperative is concerned, average consumption of last 4 to 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year of the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption as under and higher of the two figures shall be charged to set the consumer’s account right finally.” <br /> <br /> As there was no reading of prior 4 to 6 months or of the same months of the previous year of the enhanced load, the OPs-Board should have charged taking the average of 830 units bi-monthly according to the period 9/2007 to 2/2008 and not to charge the consumer on the average basis of 3160, 2801 and 2575 units on prorata basis. Therefore, we hold that the average taken by the OPs-Board for the period 9/2007 to 2/2008 of 3160, 2801 and 2575 units on prorate basis was wrong and illegal and can not sustain. However, the OPs-Board can charge the complainant for the aforesaid period taking the average of 830 units bi-monthly and if this average is taken, the complainant was liable to pay for 2490 units for the aforesaid period and not for 8555 units as claimed by the OPs-Board. <br /> 10. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. The demand raised by the OPs-Board on account of consumption for 09/2007 to 02/2008 of 8555 units is set aside. However, the OPs-Board shall charge the complainant for the period 9/2007 to 2/2008 taking the average of 830 units bi-monthly (i.e. 2490 units) and issue the fresh demand accordingly within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant shall deposit the aforesaid amount within 15 days from the date of issuance of new demand of 2490 units & thereafter, the OPs-Board shall restore the electric connection of the complainant within 7 days. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order shall be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. <br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> <br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:07.08.2008.<br /> <br /> <br />