BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.499 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 14.10.2019

      Date of Decision:22.02.2022

Harinder Mohan Singh 63 years S/o Sh. Jodh Singh R/o 48-Urban Estate, Phase-II, 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)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

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

                   Sh. S. K. S. Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj(President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide electric connection No.3002972476 installed at his house under the jurisdiction of OP No.2. The said connection is in the name of father of the complainant namely Sh. Jodh Singh who has since expired on 15.10.2005. After the death of his father, complainant is using the said connection being the actual and lawful consumer and making the payments of energy bills issued by OPs and OPs are accepting the same without any demur or objection. Thus, there is a relationship of consumer and service provider within the complainant and the OPs. That in the month of November 2017, the meter reader visited the complainant to record the reading recorded by electric 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. Consequently, the meter reader could not record the consumption and bill dated 11.11.2017 was issued on ‘N’ code. Expression ‘N’ means reading not taken. 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 OP w.e.f. November 2017 depicts the status of the meter as defective ‘D’ code. The OPs failed to discharge their statutory obligation of removing the defective meter and installing the correct meter for 12 months. The defective meter was replaced by OP No.2 in December 2018, after protected follow-ups, persuasions, inquiries and protestations of complainant. There was no reason or ground for OPs for keeping the defective meter at site. The OPs are above referred 12 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, OPs are monopolistic institution and there is no survival without electricity, the complainant had no option but to pay the overstated bills. That the said illegal and unlawful acts of the OPs has caused a lot of mental tension, agony, inconvenience and harassment to the complainant besides financial loss and OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for the same 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 November 2017 to November 2018 amounting to Rs.1,97,520/- and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental torture, harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed just to harass the answering OPs. The complaint filed by the complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.

It is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.2 is neither the juristic person nor can be sued. It is further averred that the complainant not approached the Commission with the clean hands and intentionally and deliberately concealed the material facts from this Commission. It is pertinent to mention here that the meter of the consumer remained defective from 01.02.2018 to 17.11.2018, which was ultimately replaced vide MCO No:100006985201 dated 16.11.2018 on 18.11.2018. It is worthwhile to mention here that due to defect in the meter the meter was not recording the actual consumption of the units consumed by the consumer. The close scrutiny of the said data reveals that status of the consumer remained ‘D’ code from 01.02.2018 to 17.11.2018. That during the aforesaid period the bills were issued to the consumer of the basis of the average basis. After the removal of the defective meter, as per the rules and regulations and circulars of the PSPCL and recover the revenue loss, account of the consumer was overhauled with the consumption of the electricity consumed by the consumer of the corresponding previous year and accordingly, demand was raised from the consumer in the subsequent bill. It is further averred that no cause of action arose to the complainant against the answering OPs rather cause of action arisen to the answering OP against the complainant for dragging the answering OPs in the false, frivolous and unwanted litigation. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable in the present form. It is further averred that this Commission having no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case. On merits, the factum in regard to installation of the electricity connection in the premises of the complainant is 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 produced on the file their respective evidence.

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

6.                The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant is a consumer of the electricity from the electric connection installed in the name of his father. After the death of Shri Jodh Singh, the father of the complainant, the complainant is using the connection. His further submission is that in the month of November 2017, the meter reader found that the meter is moving very fast and is showing the consumption despite all the bulbs, tubes and other electrical appliances were switched off. The bill was issued on ‘N’ code. The concerned JE visited the place and found the meter to be defected and assured the complainant to replace the meter within 10 days, but despite the assurance, the meter was not replaced till November, 2018. During this period, the bills were being sent and the complainant has challenged the bills from November 2017 to November 2018 for an amount of Rs.1,97,520/-. The OPs have acted negligently and there is deficiency in service. The OPs have not followed the instructions mentioned in the Supply Code. Request has been made to allow the complaint.

7.                 The counsel for the OPs has submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not informed the OPs regarding the death of Jodh Singh. He is not consumer at all. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. He has further submitted that the meter was replaced when the fact regarding the working of the meter came in the knowledge of the OP in February, 2018. The meter was shown with ‘D’ Code from 01.02.2018 upto 17.11.2018 and not from November, 2017 as alleged by the complainant. The amount of bill has been claimed from the complainant as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and no unfair trade practice on behalf of the OPs. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.                With regard to the objection of the OPs regarding the maintainability of complaint, the complainant has proved on record the death certificate of Jodh Singh, Driving license of the complainant as Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, Aadhar Card of the complainant Ex.C-3. In both the documents Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, the complainant has been shown as the son of Sh. Jodh Singh and the address of the complainant has been shown in the bills is the same as shown in Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. As per amended Supply Code relied upon by the OPs, in the event of the death of the consumer, the heirs may apply for the connection to be transferred in the name of one of the heirs. In this Code, in the regulation 11.6.3 the word ‘may’ has been used, which shows that it is not mandatory to get the connection transferred in the name of heirs after death. Even otherwise, as per the Supply Code, 2014 and as per notification dated 29.06.2007 by Pb. State Electricity Regulatory, “the ‘Consumer’ means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a distribution licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under the Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a license, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;”

9.                In the present case, the complainant is using the electricity and as per the Supply Code, 2014 and the notification, the complaint is maintainable.

10.              The complainant has produced on record the bills Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5. As per Ex.C-4, the bill has been issued for the period 28.09.2017 to 11.11.2017 and the status of the meter has been shown as ‘N’, meaning thereby that the reading not taken. Another bill from 28.09.2017 to 28.11.2017 has been issued and the status of the meter has been shows as ‘O’ means normal. The bills Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-4 are for the same period, whereas Ex.C-5 is just 17 days more than Ex.C-4 and in Ex.C-5, the reading for the same period has been shown Normal, whereas in Ex.C-4 the status has been shown ‘N’, means not taken. From 28.11.2017 to 01.02.2018, from 28.11.2017 to 03.03.2018, the status of the meter has been shown “D”, means defective. Then in the next bill, the period has been shown from 28.11.2017 to 02.04.2018 and the status has been shows as ‘O’, means normal. Again from 02.04.2018 to 02.05.2018, 02.05.2018 to 14.06.2018, 18.07.2018 to 02.08.2018, 02.08.2018 to 29.08.2018, 29.08.2018 to 03.10.2018 and 03.10.2018 to 03.11.2018, the status has been shows as ‘D’, means defective. There are three bills, which are from the period 28.11.2017, out of which in two bills, status has been shown as defective, whereas in one bill the status has been shown as ‘O’. If the meter was defective from 28.11.2017 till 03.03.2018, then how can the reading and status be normal from 28.11.2017 to 02.04.2018 without replacing the meter? This is the negligence act of the OPs.

11.              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 November 2018 from 28.11.2017, but the same was not replaced as per the instructions.

12.              As per the bills produced on record by the complainant, the consumption has been shown even in the defective meters and 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 for the same period without replacing the defective meter. Further, as per '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 and in support of this observation, we like to made reliance upon a pronouncement of our Hon'ble State Commission, cited in 2003(1) C. P. C. 310, titled as “Shingara Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Another”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

                   “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 15 & 12,           Electricity bill, amount of electricity bill was demanded from 1997         to 1999 on average basis, It is now settled law that maximum     period for which bill can be raised in respect of a defective meter          under Electricity Act is 6 months and no more, Order of District        Forum quashed, Case remanded for fresh decision keeping into        view above mentioned observations.”

13.               It has been held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, cited in 2012 (3) CPJ 59, titled as “Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Bherunlal”, which is as under:-

                   “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1) (f), 2(1) (g)          and 15 electricity-Defective meter – Bills sent to complainant on         average basis – Subsequently arrears included in the subsequent       bill as per the MRI report – Alleged deficiency in service – District        Forum allowed the complaint – Appeal against – Held, it is the     prime duty of corporation to install standard meters after due           testing – If any defective meter has been installed by corporation the burden cannot be put on consumer – Replacement of meter          directed – Impugned order upheld – Appeal dismissed.”

14.              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.

15.              From the above detailed discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission and Rajasthan 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 November 2017 to November 2018 amounting to Rs.1,97,520/- is hereby set-aside and OPs are directed not to recover any amount from the complainant for the aforesaid period, but after November 2018, the OPs can recover the electricity charges and other charges as per rule. 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.

16.              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    Jyotsna                Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj    22.02.2022         Member                        Member           President