Punjab

Sangrur

CC/33/2017

Ranjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sushil Kumar

04 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,SANGRUR.

 

                                                  Complaint No.  33

                                                  Instituted on:   23.01.2017

                                                  Decided On:   04.05.2017

 

Ranjit Singh son of Late Harnek Singh resident of village Arkwas, Tehsil Lehra Gagga, District Sangrur.

 

                                                  ….Complainant                                                

                                                                                Versus

 

1.       SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub -Division Lehra Gagga (Rural) District Sangrur.

 

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its CMD.

                                                  ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Sushil Kumar, Advocate.

 

FOR  THE OPP. PARTIES:       Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate.

 

 

 

 

Quorum

 

            Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

            Sarita Garg, Member

            Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

ORDER:    

 

 

                  Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.               Ranjit Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that earlier his father  was the subscriber of electric connection bearing account number AS-34/0024 which was  installed in his residential premises. After the death of his father he being the beneficiary and legalheir  has been using the connection and has been paying the bills regularly. He is aggrieved by the demand of Rs.34,370/-  raised through the impugned bill dated 19.08.2016 for  consumption of 4512 units which was highly excessive  and might  have been resulted due to sudden jumping of the meter digits as the average consumption of electricity by complainant is 300-400 units. The complainant deposited Rs.120/- with OPs as meter challenge fees on 26.08.2016. the meter was not removed in his presence  and same was neither sealed and packed nor his signatures were obtained on the meter change order. He never called in the M.E. laboratory, nor, the meter was checked in his presence.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service, the present complaint is filed seeking reliefs of directing the opposite parties to: a) withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.34370/- raised under the impugned bill dated 19.08.2016 and charge the bill for the month of August 2016 on the average basis,   b) pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental, pain, agony, harassment, and c) pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.               In reply, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability and cause of action have been taken up. It is opposite parties case that the electric connection in question is running in the name of Harnek Singh at village Arakwas. It is submitted that the complainant challenged the meter by depositing Rs.120/- as meter challenge fee. The bill dated 25.10.2016 was issued for consumption of 484 units on average basis.  The old meter was changed vide  MCO number 48/23014 dated 26.08.2016  which was effected on 27.08.2016 by Davinder Singh JE and the  meter was duly sealed and packed and sent to M.E. laboratory.  Meter was checked  in the M.E. laboratory on 14.12.2016  and during checking  results of the meter were found to be OK and complainant was asked to deposit the amount previously charged in the bill which is said to be justified.

3.               The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-14 and closed evidence.

4.               As already noticed, the complainant is aggrieved by the demand of Rs.34370/- raised under the   impugned bill dated 19.08.2016 which was for 4512 units.   It is specific case of the complainant that the said bill was highly excessive as earlier  his average consumption was 300-400 units  and after receiving the said bill dated 19.08.2016 he approached the OPs and challenged the meter by depositing the meter challenge fee of Rs.120/- which fact has been admitted by the OPs. 

5.               Further, it is case of the complainant that the meter was not removed by the OPs in his presence nor the meter was packed and sealed in the cardboard box before sending it in the M.E. laboratory under his signature.  He was not called in the M.E.laboratory for checking the said meter in his presence.  The M.E. laboratory report on record is Ex.OP-6. Admittedly it does not bear complainant’s signatures, nor, it is anybody’s case that  the meter was checked in the presence of complainant. In such a situation, we find that complainant seems to have been condemned unheard and entire procedure followed by opposite parties is uncalled for. It is the case of the OPs that the meter in dispute was checked in the M.E. laboratory and it found to be  OK. As per Commercial Circular No.8/99 of the Electricity Corporation,  it is mandatory that all meters removed against any meter change order are to be sent to  M.E. Laboratories  in the sealed cardboard box duly signed by the concerned PSEB Officers/ Officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In Punjab State Electricity Board  Vs. Mohan Lal 2007 (2) C.P.J. 166 Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Commission was dealing with a similar situation, where, meter was not packed and sealed in the presence of consumer/ his representative  and no notice was sent to the complainant to come present in the M.E. laboratory when  meter was to be checked.  Therefore, the order of the District Forum quashing the demand was upheld. So, we feel that the checking of the meter in the M.E. laboratory conducted by the OPs is not valid and legal in the eyes of law as the OPs themselves violated the instructions of their own commercial circular  no.8/99.

6.               Learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the present complaint is not maintainable as the connection is still running in the name of Late Harnek Singh. We find the contention does not hold much water for the simple reason that it is complainant's specific case that the connection is in the name of his father Late Harnek Singh who has now died many years ago and since then being the legalheir he has been paying the bills regularly. Significantly, in reply it is not denied that Late Harnek Singh was the father of complainant who has died, after which, complainant has been paying the bills regularly. In such a situation,  we find that complainant being the beneficiary after death of his father would very much fall within the definition of consumer.

7.               For these reasons, therefore, we allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to:

a)       withdraw the demand of Rs.34370/- raised under the impugned bill dated 19.08.2016 and to charge the bill for the month of August 2016 on average basis as per rules  of the Punjab State Power Corporation,

 

b)       pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10000/-in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation on account of mental pain, agony harassment and litigation expenses.

8.               The OPs are also directed to  adjust the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant against the demand raised under the bill dated 19.08.2016.

9.               This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.            Announced

        May 4, 2017

 

 

 ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)      (Sarita Garg)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                   Member                      Member                      President

 

BBS/-