BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

   Complaint No.202 of 2019

       Date of Instt. 10.06.2019

       Date of Decision:16.12.2022

Dr. Ramanpreet Singh Sood S/o Sh.Sudarshan Singh Sood R/o 625-Green Model Town, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through       its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.       AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub-Division, Model     Town Commercial, Boota Pind, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Chandandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.       

                   Sh. SKS Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that complainant is consumer of electricity, vide electric connection no.3004575905 falling under the jurisdiction of OP No.2. The complainant is using the said connection being the actual & lawful consumer and making the payments of energy bills issued by OPs. Thus, there is a relationship of consumer and service provider within the complainant and OPs. In month of June 2018, the meter reader visited the complainant to record the reading recorded by electricity meter installed outside the premises of complainant. The meter reader observed that meter has gone erratic and is moving very fast and not recording correct consumption. The meter was recording consumption even when all electric appliances tubes/bulbs/fans/switches/gadgets are switched off. The meter reader immediately apprised the concerned JE and the concerned JE visited the complainant to ascertain defect in the meter and after being satisfied that meter has gone defective and his moving exorbitantly fast, declared the meter as defective and assured the complainant that installed defective meter shall be replaced shortly within 10 days with new correct meter. The bills issued by respondent w.e.f. June 2018 depicts the status of meter as defective (D Code). The OPs failed to discharge their statutory obligation of removing the defective meter and installing the correct meter even today, after the lapse of more than 12 months, despite protracted follow-ups, persuasions, inquiries and protestations of complainant. There was no reason or ground for opposite parties for keeping the mtomber char defective meter at site. The OPs for above referred 12a months continued to send the exorbitant/inflated bills to complainant. The OPs on account of their own delay and latches to remove the defective meter, made the complainant to suffer by issuing exaggerated bills based on average highest consumption. Since, opposite parties are monopolistic institution and there is no survival without electricity, the complainant had no option/alternative but to pay the overstated bills. Hence by way of present complaint, the complainant humbly seeks the redressal of his grievance with regard to deliberate failure of OPs to perform their legal obligation of removing the defective meter and further challenge is made to the impugned exorbitant bills for the period June-2018 to May-2019. Bills for the period June 2018 to May 2019 are attached. Minimum standard of performance (Annexure 1 Supply Code 2017 notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission, notification no. PSERC/Secy/Reg97 dated Nov 5, 2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette (extra) dated Nov 5, 2014) and compensation payable to consumer in case of violation of minimum standards performance is attached. The whole act and approach of the opposite parties is callous, remorseful and their negligence is unpardonable, deficiency is inexcusable and all of them are guilty of unfair trade practice and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to set-aside the bills for the period from June-2018 to May-2019. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed material facts from the Commission and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. It is further averred that the complainant is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties as OP No.2 is neither the juristic person nor can be sued. The complainant is stopped by his own act, conduct, admission and omissions from filing the present complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant against OPs. This is nothing but misuse of the process of Court. It is further averred that the complaint is incomplete and does not mention the correct and proper facts and history of the case. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the electricity connection and it is also admitted that the complainant made the payment of energy bills to the OPs. The defect in the meter in the month of June, 2018 is also admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant is a consumer of electricity and is using the electricity connection number 3004575905. The complainant has alleged that he has been making the payment of the bills from time to time. It has been alleged by the complainant that in the month of June, 2018, when the meter reader visited the premises for reading and he found that the meter has gone erratic and is moving very fast and not recording correct consumption. This fact has been admitted by the OP that in the month of June, 2018, the meter was reported to be defective and the status of the meter as ‘defective (D-Code)’ was shown in the bills. The grudge of the complainant is that despite the status shown in the bill, the meter was not replaced and the defective meter was not removed even after the lapse of more than 12 months. The complainant has proved on record the bills from 18 June, 2018 to 14 April, 2019 Ex.C-4 consisting of all these bills. All these bills show the meter status with the D-Code, meaning thereby that even after the lapse of 12 months, the meter has not been replaced. This is the negligence act of the OPs.

7.                As per the instructions in the Supply Code, 2014 the distribution licensee shall inspect and check correctness of a meter within seven working days of receipt of a complaint or report by its authorized official/officer/representative. If the meter is defective (i.e. it is struck up, running slow, fast or creeping), the distribution licensee shall replace the meter within ten working days of receiving the complaint or report by its authorized official. In the present case, the meter remained defective for almost 12 months upto April, 2019 from June, 2018, when the meter was reported to be defective, but the same was not replaced as per the instructions.

8.                As per the bills produced on record by the complainant, the consumption has been shown in all the bills, though having D-Status, but no action has been taken by the OPs. There is no fault of the complainant. This was due to the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as they have been issuing the bills without replacing the defective meter. Further, 'Electricity Supply Code' and 'Related Matters Regulations 2007', wherein Clause 21.5.2 itself gave a direction to the employee of the Punjab State Corporation that “in case of dead or stop meter the accounts of the consumer shall be overhauled for the period meter remained defective/dead stop, subject to maximum period of six months”, but in this case, the meter was defective and despite that the impugned bill was issued of the above said period of one year, which is again against the regulations 2007.

9.                It has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, cited in 1995(2) CPJ 70, titled as “Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Ashok Kumar”,  which is as under:-

                   “The meter of the respondent remained non functional for about two years and thereafter, it was replaced by the appellant.   The District Forum rightly noticed that the primal responsibility of     the correct metering of electric energy lies on the Board and its   equipment unless tampering or other malpractice is established. It      seems right in its view that the respondent cannot be held liable for   the fault of the meter, if any and it is for the appellant-Board to   either have checked the same or replaced if it was defective. The District Forum was right in holding that unless it is established that         the respondent had either tampered or consumed more electricity           than shown in the bills, he cannot be arbitrarily burdened with    additional charges.”

                   In the present case, as per the rules and instruction the defective meter is to be changed within 10 working days and it is the responsibility of the board. Thus the complainant cannot be held liable as there are no allegations of any malpractice or tempering with the meter by the complainant.

10.              From the above detailed discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, it has emerged that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and bill issued by the OPs for the period June, 2018 to May 2019 is hereby set-aside and OPs are directed to issue the bills of disputed period as per rules and Electricity Supply Code. Further, OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental torture, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon           Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

16.12.2022                    Member                               President