The complainant Davinder singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is father of Nishan Singh who is living abroad, so the complainant on behalf of his son filed this complaint as he is also beneficiary of the Electricity being supplied through electricity connection which is in the name of his son Nishan singh.
It is alleged that opposite party No.3 raised bill no. 1004171661 dated 10.3.2022 in the month of 3/2022 which is abnormal i.e. more than excess normal bill. On enquiry, the opposite party told that the amount has been charged by their audit party and handed over a few papers i.e. an audit Note (2) Calculation sheet, a notice no. 6954 dated 30.9.2021, an undertaking, consumption data and payment data. From the said documents, complainant came to know that meter was checked in M.E. Lab vide report No. 26/176 and observed that the meter was slow by average (-) 68.30% and as per calculation sheet from 1.9.2021 to 5.3.2021 for 6 months., a notice No. 6954 dated 30.9.2021 was issued to complainant asking him to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,097/- within 7 days.
It is further alleged that while removing the meter, the staff members got signed an undertaking from complainant and conveyed that there was no need to send meter to M.E. lab as meter is not defective and is being removed due to solar system installation. Thereafter complainant received an inflated bill of Rs.63,590/- which included an amount of Rs.40,987/-.
It is also alleged that while removing the old meter and during its further testing etc. the opposite parties have made the following violations of their own rules and regulations :
i) That as per instruction no. 51, a correct meter of suitable capacity shall be installed at the period of commencement of supply and as also as per rule 55 of Electricity Act, but in the present case, the penalty charges are made for 6 months which means the meter was not correct for months together.
ii) That meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant. As per instructions no. 55 xix the opposite party are responsible for the safety of meter located outside the premises.
iii)That as per instructions no. 55 x of,ESIM if a meter is installed outside premises, another meter i.e. a display unit is also to be installed by the opposite party inside the premises so that the consumption be cross checked but in the present case the display unit has not been provided.
iv) That no periodical testing of meter within three years was done by the opposite party which is mandatory as per regulation 31.3.5 of Supply Code and similarly as per instruction no. 106 of ESIM, the JE should check the meter at least once in a year.
v) As per 21.36 there is procedure to conduct the accuracy of meters and as per this regulations, it is mandatory to call the applicant/consumer with a notice providing him 3 dates for the joint checking.
vii) As per instructions No. 553.2. the procedure to replace the three phase meter is given. The opposite parties have not got signed the job order i.e. Meter change order and also not made any observation on it.
The complainant alleged that the opposite parties should have matched the consumption pattern of the applicant at least for last 3 years which is common practice. Thus, there is deficiency in services on part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to issue the correct bill after overhauling the account and the alleged amount of Rs.40,997/- as charged be withdrawn alongwith all surcharges and also pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac in addition to Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant does not have any cause of action to file the present complaint as he is not consumer of the opposite parties. Moreover, Devinder Singh complainant has not placed on record any authority letter etc., on behalf of Nishan Singh actual consumer of the opposite parties, to contest the present complaint. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts.
It has been pleaded that the complainant has concealed the fact that the meter in question was checked with the consent of Nishan Singh actual consumer of the opposite parties and the meter was checked on 01.09.2021 in M.E. Lab and it is found that Y ang B phase of Voltage were missing and meter was running slow to the extent of 68.3%, as such the opposite parties imposed Rs.40,997/- as charges for said slow running and the opposite parties are legally entitled to recover the said amount from the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for as the complainant is defaulter in making the payment of electricity bills regularly and now a sum of Rs.68,598/- was due and recoverable up to 08.06.2022 and now the said amount has been increased due non payment of above said amount and also next electricity bill as per consumption. .
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their version as pleaded in legal objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1) and the documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-13).
In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Baljinder Singh dated 31.5.2023 (Ex. OP-1/9) and the documents (Ex.OP-1/1 & Ex.OP-1/8).
The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that electricity connection No. 3006758179 is installed in the name of complainant's son Nishan Singh, who is at present living abroad and complainant is using electricity from the said connection and paying bills. As such, complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. It is further argued that opposite party No. 3 raised bill dated 10-3-3022 by way of which amount of Rs. 40,997/- was demanded by the opposite parties. On inquiry, it was disclosed that vide checking report No. 26/176, it was found that meter was running slow by average 68.30% and accordingly, audit party had charged amount of Rs. 40,997/-. It is further argued that checking was not carried out in the presence of the complainant and opposite parties had obtained signatures of the complainant on one consent form Ex. C-9, under misrepresentation. It is also argued by learned counsel for the complainant that meter is installed outside premises of the complainant and as such, complainant is not bound by any such observations of the ME. Lab. It is further argued by learned counsel for the complainant that vide letter No. 21 of 2022 Ex. C-3 issued vide memo No. 248/253/SV dated 3-8-2022, due amount standing recoverable from all the residential connections upto 31-12-2021 has been exempted by Government of Punjab and necessary instructions have already been issued to all the concerned officers of the opposite parties. Since the disputed bills also pertains to the period from 1-9-2021 to 3-5-2021 and notice No. 6954 dated 30-9-2021 was issued to the complainant to deposit the amount, as such, the case of the complainant falls under the said letter of the Government and accordingly, opposite parties were required to comply with the same on their own.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has argued that complainant has no authority to file the present complaint as Nishn Singh is actual consumer and the alleged power of attorney by which the complainant was authorized to file the present complaint is also a fake document having been executed during the pendency of complaint and said document is not legally valid document as the same has been executed on stamp paper of Rs. 50/-. It is further argued that learned counsel for the opposite parties that meter was checked on 1-9-2019 in M.E. Lab in the absence of complainant after taking permission from the complainant vide Ex. C-9 and it was found that Y and B phase of voltage were missing and meter was running slow to the extent of 68.30% and accordingly, opposite parties imposed Rs. 40,997/- for slow running of the meter and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and has prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance on : 2012(2) Consumer Law Today 686 (NC); 2012 (1) CPJ 241 (NC); 2009 (4) CPJ 308 (NC) and 2013 (1) CLT 453 (NC).
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
It is admitted fact that electricity connection No. 3006758179 is installed in the residential premises of the complainant, in the name of Nishan Singh who is son of complainant. However, the opposite parties have disputed the competency of the complainant to file the present complainant.
As per Section 2(7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 :-
'Consumer' means any person who :
(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
Therefore, this Commission is of the view that since the complainant is using said connection, consuming electricity and paying bills and as such, complainant definitely falls under the definition of consumer being beneficiary and is fully competent to file the present complaint. Moreover, the dispute regarding competency of complainant to file the present complaint has already been decided by this Commission vide order dated 21-6-2023.
Now the question before this Commission is regarding checking of meter in M.E. Lab by the opposite parties in the absence of complainant. This Commission is of the view that although letter to examine the meter in the absence of complainant Ex. C-9 is signed by the complainant, however, the opposite parties have not shown any law or any section of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual which authorize the opposite parties to carry out checking by taking permission of the consumer to examine meter in his/her absence. Moreover, it has been pleaded by the complainant that Ex. C-9 was got signed under misrepresentation. As per Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, 2018, it was mandatory for the opposite parties to have issued notice to complainant before carrying out checking. Moreover, a perusal of Job Card for Device Replacement Ex. OP-1/6 shows that electricity meter of the complainant was replaced for solar plant and Ex. OP-1/6 does not bear any observation as to which official of the opposite parties has removed the said electricity meter and what was the observation of the said official at the time of removal of meter inspite of the fact that official removing the said meter was required to note down observations at the time of removal of the meter. The opposite parties have claimed that meter was running slow by 68.30 % by claiming that Y and B phase voltage was missing. However, this fact is not disputed that electricity meter of the complainant was located outside premises of the complainant.
As per Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, 2018, (Section III) 51.3 ( xix) : PSPCL shall be responsible for the safety of the meter located outside the premises of the consumer and the consumer shall be responsible for the safety of the real time display unit installed by the PSPCL in consumer premises. As such, this Commission is of the view that even if the meter is found to be running slow, as alleged by the opposite parties, complainant cannot be held liable for the alleged fault i.e. Y and B phase of voltage.
Even Section 55.3 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, 2018 provides that single phase meters : Electro mechanical meters removed from the consumer premises on replacement with the electronic meters shall be returned to ME. Labs without any other formality and ME labs will not carry out any checking/testing of these meters except in case of disputed meters. But in the present case, meter has been removed for installation of solar plant. As such, opposite parties have not been able to explain as to what was the necessity to get the meter checked in M.E Lab and that also in his absence and that also after getting alleged consent of the complainant. Accordingly, this Commission is of the view that since the meter of the complainant was checked in M.E. In his absence and at the time of removal of meter, it has not been shown as to which official of the opposite parties removed the meter and there is no observation of any official of the opposite parties on Job order for device replacement Ex. OP-1/6 as what is defect and reason for replacement other than solar plant.
Therefore, this Commission is of the view that opposite parties have issued memo No. 6954 dated 30-9-2021 to complainant without any valid reason and accordingly opposite parties having no authority to recover the alleged amount of Rs. 40,997/- from the complainant. Hence, memo No. 6954 dated 30-9-2021 Ex. OP-1/3 is liable to be set aside. This Commission is further of the view that as per letter No. 21 of 2022 bearing memo No. 248/253/SV dated 3-8-2022 Ex. C-3, all the due bills of electricity in respect of domestic connections upto 31-12-2021 has been exempted by Government of Punjab and necessary instructions have been issued to the concerned officials of the opposite parties . Accordingly, memo No. 6954 dated 30-9-2021 regarding recovery of amount of Rs.40,997/- also falls in the said exemption and in view of the letter Ex. C-3, it was obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to have exempted the complainant on their own without intervention of this Commission, hence failure on the part of the opposite parties of not having complied with the instructions Ex. C-3, also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above discussions and evidence on record, this complaint is partly allowed in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties and accordingly memo No. 6954 dated 30-9-2021 Ex. C-3, is hereby quashed/set aside. The complainant is also held entitled to Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. However, it is made clear that the complainant is liable to pay the actual electricity consumption charges without any surcharge etc.,
The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced
27-06-2023
- (Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
(Shivdev Singh)
Member
