Order dictated by:
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. Rajwinder Kaur, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant is having an electric connection bearing account No. T23CH720388X for her domestic use. The complainant has received memo No. 2698 dated 23.12.2016 raising a demand of Rs. 49,636/-. The said memo was about some checking of the meter of the complainant in ME Lab which was never done in the presence of the complainant and the complainant was never intimated about it. The said memo is against the provisions of the law and does not disclose the nature of calculations of the demand allegedly demanded from the complainant. The complainant has earlier filed complaint No. 278/16 which was decided on 18.11.2016 on the similar cause of action. The aforesaid act of the opposite party demanding the alleged amount, amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
(a) Opposite party be directed not to demand the alleged amount of Rs. 49,636/- raised vide memo dated 23.12.2016.
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 30000/- be also awarded to the complainant alongwith adequate litigation expenses.
Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version in which it was submitted the present complaint is not maintainable as the matter in dispute has already been decided in complaint No. 278/2016 on 18.11.2016. In that complaint this Forum has directed the opposite party to raise demand afresh from the complainant after following proper procedure. As such as per directions of this Forum, opposite party issued a fresh memo vide memo No. 2968 dated 23.12.2016 for Rs. 49,636/- according to rules and regulations of the PSPCL. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh. Inderjit Lakhra,Adv.counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, original memo No. 2698 dated 23.12.2016 Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Anil Sharma,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of sh.Pawan Kumar, SDO, Gohalwar Ex.OP1, copy of memo dated 23.12.2016 Ex.OP2, copy of order of this Forum Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant was served with memo No. 2698 dated 23.12.2016 raising a demand of Rs. 49,636/- which demand as per the complainant is illegal and arbitrary. In the said memo, it was specifically mentioned that this demand has been raised on account of some checking of the meter in the ME Lab. However, the complainant was never called into the ME Lab nor any checking of the meter was done in the presence of the complainant nor the meter was sealed and packed as per the procedure laid down by the opposite party. However, the case of the opposite party is that in the earlier complaint filed by the complainant , this Forum has directed the opposite party to raise demand afresh from the complainant by following proper procedure. As such, fresh memo No. 2968 dated 23.12.2016 raising a demand of Rs. 49,636/- was issued to the complainant. But it has not been made clear by the opposite party as to in whose presence the electric meter of the consumer was checked in the ME Lab. and also as to whether any notice was sent to the complainant before checking the meter in the ME Lab. Moreover, there is no reference of checking of the meter in the ME Lab in any para of the written version filed by the opposite party. Moreover the opposite party has also failed to produce on record any report of ME Lab or any consent of the complainant or any of his representative to get the meter checked in ME Lab in his absence. Hence, in the absence of complainant or his authorized agent the report , if any, of the ME Lab cannot be ipso-facto deemed to be correct. It is the specific case of the complainant that he was never called by the opposite party before checking the meter in the ME Lab. On the other hand the opposite party has failed to produce any document to show that they ever served any notice upon the consumer to be appeared before the ME Lab . In such a situation non service of the notice upon the consumer completely vitiate the findings recorded at the ME Lab., if any, in respect of the electric meter of the complainant. We draw support from 2000(2) Civil Court Cases pagd 377 where it has been held by the hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition titled as M/s. Tirupati Industries Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. in para No. 11 of the judgement as follows:-
“A bare reading of the above reproduced provisions of the Commercial Circular shows that the testing of meter removed against any meter change order is to be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative. This necessarily means that a notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date, time and place of the testing of meter. Admittedly, that was not done in the petitioner case.Shri Sukhbir Singh argued that the violation of the instructions contained in commercial circular No. 45 should not be made basis for nullifying the decision taken by the Board because these instructions do not have the force of law. We are unable to agree with him because it is a settled proposition of law that the executive authorities of the state and its agencies are bound to act in accordance with the administrative/executive instructions with regulate their actions-Union of India V.K.P.Joseph AIR 1973 S.C. 303, Amritsar Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab , AIR 1975 S.C. 984, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 S.C. 1628.”
6. When the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court , it becomes transparently clear that non service of the notice by the opposite party on the complainant before testing his meter in the ME Lab. has vitiated the entire process and proceedings allegedly conducted by the opposite party.
7. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the demand of Rs. 49,636/- raised vide impugned memo No. 2698 dated 23.12.2016 is hereby set-aside. As the complainant has been harassed by the act of the opposite party by raising such illegal demand twice and the complainant has to file the complaint to get the redressal of his grievances by spending huge amount and in such a situation the complainant is certainly entitled to a reasonable compensation which we quantify at Rs. 3000/- while litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 15.6.2017
