Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/394

Jagwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

B.K.Rampal

08 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 394 dated 20.08.2021                       

                                 Date of decision: 08.12.2022  

Jagwinder Kaur w/o Sh.Rajwinder Singh r/o Vishal Nagar, Kailash Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited., The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.

2.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana through its XEN.                                                                                                                                                                             …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,2020(as amended upto date).

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS.MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.B.K.Rampal, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Sh.G.S.Pahwa, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant as alleged in the complaint is that she is having an electricity connection bearing No.3003344499 in her name for the last so many years and she had been regularly paying the electricity charges as per consumption. On 03.10.2020, the complainant noticed some defect in the terminal block of the meter and the electric meter was not supplying the electricity to the premises of the complainant. She moved an application to the OPs on 03.10.2020 intimating the detection of defect. On the basis of the said application, the OPs changed/replaced the meter on 12.10.2020 vide NCR No.49/7093. The new meter was installed in the premises of the complainant but according to the complainant, the same is also defective and shows the higher reading than the actual consumption. The Ops without any justification issued a bill of Rs.3,67,680.66P on average basis. Earlier, actually the complainant had been receiving the bills of electricity consumption charges between the range of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per month. The complainant made a request to the OPs to correct the bill but they did not listen her genuine request. Further, the Ops threatened the complainant to deposit the electricity charges, failing which the meter would be disconnected. However, the Ops are still demanding an amount of Rs.2 lacs from the complainant. Further, the complainant stated that the complainant was not informed when the meter was sent for testing in the M.E.Lab by the Ops. The complainant stated that while raising a demand of Rs.3,67,680.66P, OPs have not afforded any opportunity of hearing to the complainant. No penalty can be imposed and if there is only defect in the meter than only the average of six months has to be imposed. Owing to such act and conduct of OPs, the complainant claimed deficiency of service. Hence this complaint whereby it has been requested that the OPs be directed to set-aside the electricity bill of Rs.3,67,680.66P and also to adjust the excess amount already received by the OPs.

2.                Upon notice of the complaint, the claim of the complaint has been resisted by the OPs by filing the written statement wherein, they took the preliminary objections that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. According to the OPs, the complainant is the holder of small power electric connection with the sanctioned load of 19.90 KW and 20 KVA and is running her units for commercial purposes. As such, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Further, it has been stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. According to the OPs, the true facts are that the complainant moved an application for correcting the meter of electric connection bearing account No.3003344499 on 02.10.2021. Her premises was checked on 03.10.2021 and it was reported that the terminal block of three phase meter is burnt and after getting the cost of the meter deposit fee, the meter be changed. On receipt of the checking report, the job order for device replacement was passed on 06.10.2020 and the meter was changed on 11.10.2020 on the basis of R-Code. The average of R-Code was charged by SAP system from 09.09.2020 to 11.10.2020 for 32 days to be 44740 units as per ME Challan No.4465 dated 20.10.2020. The complainant stated that the average of R-Code charged is excessive. The average on the basis of LYSM for the period from 09.09.2019 to 11.10.2019 was 18116 units and the account of the complainant was overhauled. The amount of Rs.1,59,425/- was reduced and only approximately an amount of Rs.2 lac was charged. On merits, basically the averments of the preliminary objections were reiterated in different paragraphs of the written statement by the OPs. However, the allegations with regard to the defect in the new meter, deficiency of service and excessive charges are specifically denied and further

the rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In support of her claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CA in which she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. Baljinder Singh Sidhu, Additional SE, Sunder Nagar Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex.R6 and closed the evidence.  

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.     

6.                During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant has contended that the bill is excessive and no reasonable opportunity was afforded to him at the time of removal of the meter or at the time of assessment of the bill. Further, counsel for the complainant has relied upon case law titled as Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited(HVPN) verus Gautam Plastic-I(2008)CPJ-62(N.C.) whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that checking not done either in the presence of consumer or responsible officials of consumer and the meter not tested in M & T Lab and no notice of testing given to the consumer. Therefore, principles of natural justice not followed.

7.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs has argued that originally demand of Rs.3,67,680.66P was raised from the complainant by the OPs but after hearing the complainant, demand was reduced to Rs.2 lac. Further, counsel for the OPs has drawn attention towards the provisions of Electricity Supply Regulations No.73.1.1 and 73.1.2 which applies to the calculations of charges when the meter was found to be burnt.

8.                We have heard the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the parties.

9.                The point of issue which requires the consideration for this Commission is that whether the demand of the OPs is illegal or unjustified or the same is violations of the principle of natural justice. It is admitted case of the parties that the meter was replaced at the request and asking of the complainant when the complainant reported that the terminal block of the meter is not functioning and there is disruption in the supply of the electricity. Thereafter, the job order Ex.R2 was prepared and the meter was finally changed on 11.10.2020. The entire process took about 7/8 days and it cannot be said that the replacement of the meter was done at the back of the complainant or the complainant was not aware of the process of changing of the meter. It may be further noticed that originally the amount was assessed as Rs.3,67,680.66P on the basis of average consumption of 32 days w.e.f.09.09.2020 to 11.10.2020 but it was on the protest raised by the complainant that the demand is excessive, the account was overhauled and reduction of units was done and reduced demand on the basis LYSM for the period from 09.9.2019 to 11.10.2019 for 18116 units was raised. So, again it cannot be said that the complainant has been condemned unheard. The principle of natural justice was followed and the assessment was correctly made after giving due opportunity of being heard to the complainant. The law cited by the complainant is not applicable to be facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, no case of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs is made out.

10.                        As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases in this District Commission, the case could not be decided within the statutory period.

(Monika Bhagat)           (Jaswinder Singh)            (Sanjeev Batra)                        Member                     Member                         President

Announced in Open Commission                                           Dated:08.12.2022                                                                                    Gurpreet Sharma.