Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/613

Avinash Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi Adv.

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 613 of 12.10.2015

Date of Decision            :   09.11.2016 

Avinash Kumar Pathak @ A.K.Pathak aged 72 years s/o Late Surinder Nath r/o village Manakwal, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Model Town Unit 1, Ludhiana through its XEN.

…Opposite party

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

MRS.          VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :          Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For OP                            :          Sh.A.S.Walia, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant got domestic electric connection bearing account No.W31GT31003511 with sanctioned load of 14.580kw in the name of late Sh.Surinder Nath(father of the complainant). Complainant along with other family members paying the consumption charges since after the death of the father of the complainant in 1993. Complainant received bill dated 7/2015 for Rs.83,768/- against reading old as 1524 units, but new as 11157 i.e. for 9633 units for the period from 19.5.2015 to 12.7.2015 that is for 56 days. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP and submitted written submission dated 22.7.2015. Concerned J.E. Harjit Singh was directed to report on LCR, but OP without report of the official refused to correct the said bill resulting in non-payment of the actual consumption charges. Complainant received next bill dated 21.8.2015 for the period from 13.7.2015 to 21.8.2015 (for 39 days) against old reading of 11157 units, but with recording of NIL units(new). That bill for consumption of 4408 units on average basis for amount of Rs.32,356/- was received. So, OP claimed total bill amount of Rs.1,16,640/- including previous arrears of 83,941/- including surcharge. Complainant again approached OP for correction of the bill, but OP without report of the official refused to correct the bill resulting in non-payment of the actual consumption charges.

2.                Complainant received next bill dated 28.9.2015 for the period from 21.8.2015 to 28.9.2015 (for 38 days) against the previous reading of 15565 units but with new units of NIL i.e. for 4295 units on average basis. This bill was for an amount of Rs.31,564/-. Op claimed total bill amount of Rs.1,51,020/- including arrears of previous bill of 7/2015 and 8/2015 including surcharges. OP in between asked the complainant to deposit amount of Rs.2450/- including cost of the       meter, which was paid on 21.9.2015. Meter was changed on the same date and it was packed and then sealed in the presence of the complainant. Even it was checked in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant on 6.10.2015, where display of the meter was declared defective. This means that the meter was not showing the display record of any reading. Despite receipt of the report of ME Lab, OP still has not corrected the disputed bill and has threatened to disconnect the electric connection, in case, the complainant failed to deposit the amount without protest. Complainant never consumed 18336 units for the period from 19.5.2015 to 28.9.2015(133 days) @138 units per day. Defect in the display meter shows that bills required to be corrected, but the same have not been corrected and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, prayer made for setting aside the three bills of 7/2015, 8/2015 and 9/2015, which were issued on average basis, for demanding amount of Rs.151020/-.Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.7500/- more claimed.

3.                In written statement filed by OP, it is pleaded interalia as if false and frivolous complaint filed by the complainant by concealing the material facts. Admittedly, the electric meter in question having sanctioned load of 14.580kw under domestic category installed and in July 2015, consumption was shown as 9633 units, but in the next bill, the same was shown as 4408 units and then in the next bill, it was shown as 4295 units. Complainant challenged the working of the meter lying installed in his premises on 21.9.2015 and job order was issued for removing the challenged meter, so as to get the same checked in the ME Lab. That job order was duly effected within time and challenged meter was packed and sealed as per rules of OP and thereafter, the same was sent to ME Lab through store challan dated 6.10.2015. Complainant was called in ME Lab, where he came present on 6.10.2015 and thereafter, the challenged meter was checked in the presence of the complainant. Result of the challenged meter was found within limit meaning thereby that working of the meter was OK. So, amounts mentioned in the bills were recoverable from the complainant, but he has filed this complaint in malafide manner. Complainant was required to deposit the current bills, subject to decision of ME Lab checking, but he refused and did not deposit the bills. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.G.S.Toor, Senior Executive Engineer of OP along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and then closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments of counsel for the parties alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

7.                It may be mentioned that on filing of an application by the complainant, consumption data for the years of 2012 to 2014 was produced by OP in compliance with the orders of this Forum dated 27.9.2016.

8.                Undisputedly, the electric connection in question for domestic purpose was installed in the house of the complainant, but despite issue of bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, payment of amount mentioned in the bills has not been made by the complainant. Admittedly, the electric meter in question was sent to ME Lab for checking on request of the complainant, where he remained present during checking. Report of ME Lab has not been produced on record, but Store Challan No.270 dated 6.10.2015 produced on record as Ex.R1 for establishing that the meter in question was found OK. Though, it is the submission of counsel for the OP that meter was found OK, but in fact the same is not disclosed by contents of Ex.R1 because there it is recorded as if display is defective and despite repeated efforts, DDL did not become available. If the display is defective and DDL not coming forth despite efforts, then how the meter in question can be found OK qua that no explanation offered. So, in view of the defective display of the meter, the submission advanced by counsel for complainant has force that actually there was a defect in the meter.

9.                Ex.R1 is the copy of Store Challan No.270 of 6.10.2015 and as such, it is contended by counsel for the complainant that report of ME Lab has not been produced. That submission of counsel for the complainant has no force because Ex.R1 signed by Senior Executive Engineer in ME Lab, Ludhiana along with 4 others and as such, virtually report of ME Lab is contained in Ex.R1 itself.

10.              Ex.R2 is the consumption load checking register showing that pulse rate on putting off the load was found in working position on the concerned phase. This shows as if the meter was working, but this Ex.R2 does not show that meter was working accurately. Ex.R3 is the copy of statement of account of complainant, whereas Ex.R4 is the copy of job order passed on application dated 21.9.2015 through which the complainant challenged the meter in question. Except Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 nothing has been produced on record and as such, submission of counsel for the complainant has force that after going through Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, it is made out that these bills were sent on average basis. Word ‘D’ has been recorded qua status in bill Ex.C5. In Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 specifically mention regarding average consumption of units has been made and as such, virtually the amount in question through bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 has been sought on average basis. It is on account of this that though previous reading of the units mentioned as 15565 in bill Ex.C5 for the period w.e.f.21.8.2015 to 28.9.2015, but the column of current consumption kept as blank in it. Same is the position of bill Ex.C4 of date 21.8.2015, where the previous consumption of units shown as 11157, but the column of current consumption kept blank. It is only in Ex.C3 that mention of previous consumption as 1524 units, but the current consumption shown as 11157 units.

11.              Undisputedly, the bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 issued for charging amount of consumption of 9633 units, 4408 units and 4295 units. So, these bills are for the period from 19.5.2015 to 28.9.2015 and they are showing the total consumption of 18336 units for 133 days i.e. on average of 138 units per day. So, even if the sanctioned load may be of 14,580kw, despite that consumption of 138 units per day on a domestic electric meter is not possible. This circumstance fortifies the claim of the complainant that average bills issued in whimsical manner.

12.              After going through the consumption data record produced by the OP in response to the orders dated 27.9.2016 of this Forum, it is made out that in 7/2013 consumption recorded was of 4285 units, but in September 2013, the consumption recorded    was of 1489 units. In the month of August 2013, no consumption recorded in this consumption data. For the corresponding period of 7/2012, consumption shown as 2056 units, but for 9/2012, it is shown as 1073 units. Consumption for the months of August and October, 2012 and 2013 shown as NIL in the consumption data. However, in the consumption data, it is mentioned as if in July 2014, 1671 units were consumed, but in August 2014, 831 units were consumed, whereas in September 2014, 196 units were consumed. After having comparison of these consumption details of the previous corresponding period of July 2012 to September 2014, it is made out that virtually consumption of 9633 units shown for 56 days in bill Ex.C3 is quite improper and that is why word ‘defective display’ recorded in Ex.R1. As the earlier consumption of 2 months bills raised on average basis to the extent of 2000 or 2200 units at the most and as such, showing of excessive consumption in bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 as referred above enough to hold that even the bills not issued properly on average consumption basis.

13.              Submissions advanced by counsel for the complainant has no force that previous arrears recorded in bills Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 are in violation of the rules and regulations of Electricity Board because separate bill Ex.C3 earlier was issued for disclosing the amount of arrears for period from 19.5.2015 to 13.7.2015 only. As that amount of bill Ex.C3 was not paid even as per the case of the complainant and as such, it was but natural for OP to carry forward  that  amount in the next bill of Ex.C4 of date 21.8.2015. Amount mentioned in bill Ex.C4 even was not paid as per admission of the complainant in the complaint and as such, it was but natural for OP to carry forward the  amounts of Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 in Ex.C5. Same has been done and as such, there is no illegality in that respect.

14.              Regulation 21.5.1 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007(as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Reg.97 dated November 5, 2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette(Extra) dated November 5, 2014) provides that in the event of inaccurate meters, the billing to be done in the manner indicated therein. Even if the accuracy of the meter is not involved, but the account to be overhauled for the period of continuous mistake in application of wrong multiplication factor by keeping in view the regulation of 21.5.1 of above said regulations which has come into force w.e.f.1.1.2015. The account to be overhauled for the electricity charges for all categories of consumers in accordance with test results for a period not exceeding 6 months immediately preceding from the date of test and from the date of defective meter though as the case may be was on average basis. That calculation in the bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 have to be made on average basis by keeping in view the data of the previous corresponding years of period of 6 months immediately preceding before the date of sending the meter for testing in ME Lab and as such, in view of violation of regulation 21.5.1, the demand put forth through bills is not justified and the same is liable to be quashed, but to ensure that the complainant does not get undue benefit and OP does not suffer unnecessarily, ends of justice warrant that fresh bill as per rules and regulations of PSPCL may be prepared by OP for sending the same to the complainant for effecting recovery, but before such recovery, opportunity of personal hearing need  be provided to the complainant.

15.              Vide orders dated 19.10.2015 passed in this complaint on interim injunction application, it was ordered that disconnection of electricity connection stayed subject to deposit of regular bills of the consumed electricity minus the amount of Rs.1,17,766/- and as such, adjustment of the already paid amount by the complainant will be done by OP while passing fresh order qua recovery. As the complainant himself remained at fault in not paying the bills and as such, he is not entitled for any amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

16.              As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that demand put forth through bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 is quashed, but with the observations that Op after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the complainant to assess the bill amount for period from 19.5.2015 to 28.9.2015. Complainant will have right to present his case before concerned authority. The said authority before assessing due amount will get reply of the complainant in writing and thereafter, decide the matter, so that complainant may approach the appropriate Forum or appropriate authority of OP, in case of further need. If such exercise to be carried out by the OP of assessing bill amount, then the same must be carried out within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount already paid by the complainant in terms of orders dated 19.10.2015 passed in this complaint will be adjusted by OP in the fresh demand to be put forth from the complainant for the above referred period of 19.5.2015 to 28.9.2015. No order as to compensation and litigation is passed. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

17.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.   

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:09.11.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.