Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/314

Jatinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

K.S.Paonta Adv.

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

 

Consumer Complaint No. 314 of 28.04.2016

Date of Decision            :   02.03.2017

 

Jatinder Singh aged about 55 years s/o Sh.Ajit Singh, H.No.4036, Narinder Nagar, Near Samrala Bye Pass Chowk, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

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

2.A.E.E.(Commercial) Unit-II, Office of the Senior Executive Engineer, C.M.C.Division (Spl), Near Cheema Chowk, PSPCL, Ludhiana.

 

…Opposite parties

 

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

 

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :        Sh.Kanwarjit Singh Paonta, Advocate

For OPs                          :        Sh.Ajit Singh Walia, Advocate 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.             Complainant holds domestic electric connection bearing contract account No.3002839336 against consideration for his house. When this house remained under construction during period from May 2013 to November/December 2014, then he used to make payment of each electricity consumption bill in time. Officers of Ops used to visit the locality/house of the complainant for the purpose of taking reading and for checking of the installed meter. In November or December 2014, the officers of Ops changed the installed meter in the presence of the complainant and took away the same without its sealing and packing and without raising any objection qua the tampering of the meter or the installed appliances. No defect in the meter even was found. After change of the meter, Ops did not call upon the complainant for checking of the meter in his presence. Complainant even has not been given any option for checking of the meter in the ME Lab in his presence. Suddenly, bill dated 5.4.2016 of amount of Rs.1,46,126/- included sundry charges was issued. On contact, Ops disclosed as if amount has been charged at the behest of audit party of PSPCL by presuming that the meter of the complainant remained defective for the period from June 2013 to October 2014. Supplementary bill of amount of Rs.1,49,050/- even was issued for calling upon the complainant to make the payment by 18.4.2016. Demand of Rs.1,46,126/- raised in violation of rules and regulations; provisions of Electricity Act, 2003; Electricity Supply Code and Related Matter Regulations 2007; Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 2010 and Conditions of Supply 2010 and Supply Code 2014. Opportunity of hearing was not given to the complainant before putting forth the demand. Complainant has never been called upon to explain his position regarding down fall in the consumption. All the bills served on the complainant were having O Code status which means that meter was OK. Instructions No.21.4 (g)(I) of Electricity Supply Code even violated in matter of overhauling the account because overhauling in excess of period of six months immediately preceding the date of test in case of testing the meter is not permissible. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer for quashing the demand of Rs.1,49,050/- put forth through supplementary bill dated 5.4.2016. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- more claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded that the complaint is false and frivolous and concealment of material facts also alleged. Besides, it is claimed that the complainant has not availed efficacious remedy available to him by getting his case decided from DSC/Grievance Committee of Ops. Electric meter in question was changed through MCO dated 4.10.2014 effected on 9.10.2014 because the meter was dead stop. After removal of the meter, the same was sent to ME Lab through Store Challan dated 21.10.2014 and ME Lab reported on the Store Challan itself that body of the meter was crack as well as the meter was dead stop. However, Revenue Audit Party vide memo No.190 dated 26.10.2015 issued to AEE Commercial, CMC Division Special, Unit No.2, Ludhiana a direction for charging of amount of Rs.1,46,126/- for the period from June 2013 to October 2014 after adjusting the amount already recovered during the above period through regular consumption bills. As audit party found that consumption has decreased abnormally from June 2013 and same continued till change of the meter in October 2014 and as such, action of demand in question defended as legal and justified. Consumption data of above connection after changing the meter was also considered and it was found that consumption was recorded by new meter at very higher side, so audit party called for overhauling the account. Amount of Rs.1,46,126/- was debited in the account of above said connection through sundry register entry and thereafter, this amount was charged through bill dated 5.4.2016 in legal manner. Complainant has not applied for grant of temporary connection for construction purpose, albeit required as per rules. The earlier bills for period from May 2013 to December 2014 were not based on actual consumption due to defect in the meter, which later on went dead. The dead meter was changed in December 2014 with new one in the presence of the complainant. Admittedly, demand of Rs.1,46,126/- as sundry charges raised through bill dated 5.4.2016 as per direction of audit party. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of complaint.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C6 and thereafter,his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.Inderjit Singh, Additional S.E. along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and then closed evidence.

5.                Written arguments submitted by the complainant, but not by Ops.  Oral arguments of counsel for parties even were addressed and heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                Bill Ex.C1 dated 5.4.2016 shows as if Rs.1,46,126/- claimed as sundry charges. Demand of these sundry charges of Rs.1,46,126/- put forth on the basis of report of audit party is the case of Ops. Copy of report of audit party Ex.R1 in this respect has been produced on record along with copy of relevant register entry Ex.R2. It is not the claim of Ops that before inclusion of these sundry charges in bill Ex.C1, a separate show cause notice or separate bill was issued. Being so, it has to be held that amount of sundry charges included in the bill Ex.C1 in the first instance itself. Perusal of 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) reveals that in the event of inaccurate meters, if consumer meter on testing is found to be beyond the limits of accuracy as prescribed, then the account of the consumer shall be overhauled and the electricity charges for all categories of consumers shall be computed in accordance with the said test results for a period not exceeding six months immediately preceding the date of test in case the meter has been tested at site to the satisfaction of the consumer or from the date the defective meter is removed for testing in the laboratory of the distribution licensee. In view of this Regulation 21.5.1 of Electricity Supply Code of PSPCL, it is obvious that overhauling of the account for period of six months immediately preceding the testing of meter at site or in the ME Lab alone permissible. However, claim of the Ops put forth through written statement is that this overhauling done after receipt of inspection note from audit party for period from June 2013 to October 2014. So, virtually this overhauling done for the period of 16 months instead of 6 months. So, the claim of Rs.1,46,126/- as sundry charges put forth in violation of Regulation 21.5.1 referred above.

7.                Even Regulation 21.5.2 of above said Regulations provides that account of the consumer shall be overhauled for the period meter remained defective/dead stop subject to maximum period of six months as per procedure given in this Regulation 21.5.2 of Supply Code of PSPCL referred above. So, even if the meter in question may have been dead stop or defective, despite that overhauling of the account in excess of six months period not permissible as per Regulations of Supply Code referred above itself. Same is the proposition of law laid down in case titled as Y.N.Gupta vs. D.E.S.U.-I(1993)CPJ-27(N.C.). Reliance on Section 26(6) of Electricity Act, 1910 in this respect is placed in the above cited case. So, revised charges can be for a period not exceeding 6 months, even if the meter found defective. Act of Ops in ordering recovery for period from June 2013 to October 2014 as such is violative of the rules and regulations referred above.

8.                After going through Regulations 30.1.2 of the above said regulations, it is made out that bill cum notice for arrears in the case of under assessment or the charges levied as a result of checking etc, shall be initially tendered separately and shall not be clubbed with the current electricity bill. Further, as per this regulation 30.1.2 of Supply Code referred above, the arrear bill cum notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrears along with calculation details of such arrears. In case, the arrears not cleared by the consumer, then such arrears will be indicated regularly in the subsequent electricity bills. However, in case, arrear details is included in the current energy bill in the first instance, then distribution licensee shall not be entitled to initiate any punitive action against the consumer for non-payment of such arrear amount along with current energy bill. Violation of this regulation of 30.1.2 even committed by Ops because separate bill cum notice for arrears referred above has not been issued and nor the nature of recovery briefly notified to the complainant along with details of arrears and period of arrears through Ex.C1. So, violation of principles of natural justice even committed by Ops by not affording the opportunity of hearing to the complainant to represent against the demand put forth through Ex.C1 in the first instance.

9.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for Ops that dead stop meter was changed through MCO Ex.R3 and thereafter, the same was sent to ME Lab through Store Challan, copy of which is produced on record as Ex.R4. On Ex.R4 itself it has been reported by ME Lab that body of the meter was crack and as such, it is contended that in view of meter being dead stop, Ops entitled to charge the amount in question. However, these contentions vehemently controverted by counsel for complainant by contending that neither the alleged defective meter sealed and packed in the presence of complainant and nor testing of the same in ME Lab got done in the presence of complainant and nor notice to the complainant was given qua fixing of date for such testing. Submission advanced by counsel for the complainant certainly has force because no record produced to show that meter was removed in the presence of the complainant or that he was informed about the date of sending the defective meter to ME Lab or of the date on which testing of the same to be done.

10.              As per Regulation 21.4(d) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, in case, the testing of a meter, removed from consumer premises, to take place in the laboratory, then consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing at least seven days in advance. No such intimation in writing shown to be sent to complainant. Removal of electric meter from premises of complainant took place due to defect therein and as such, in view of Regulation 21.4(d), copy of test report should have been supplied to the complainant. That copy of test report even not shown to be supplied to the complainant and nor his signatures obtained at the time of packing of the meter. So, Ops themselves did not comply with the procedure laid down by the above said Regulations. In view of violation of these regulations committed by Ops themselves, they cannot be allowed to place reliance on report of Store Challan Ex.R4.Neither signatures of the complainant nor his family members were obtained there on Ex.R3 and nor on Ex.R4 and as such virtually the meter was even not removed or packed in the presence of the complainant or his representative.

11.              As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in case of Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Daljit Singh 2007(2) CLT 163, if the report of ME Lab is to be relied upon for raising the demand, then rules of principles of natural justice requires that a consumer must be given opportunity to oversee as to what is being done in the ME Lab regarding the removed meter. That opportunity not provided to the complainant of this case because no intimation shown to be sent to the complainant for informing him the date of testing of such meter in ME Lab, albeit seven days notice in advance should have been given and copy of the report of ME Lab should have been supplied to consumer as per Regulation 21.4 referred above. So, the demand has been put forth without following the procedure laid down by the rules and regulations of Ops themselves.

12.              As per Instruction 93.1 contained in Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, First Edition updated till 31.3.2011 by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, Patiala, in case a bill is to be raised on account of defect in the metering equipment or unauthorized use of electricity etc, then separate bill has to be issued containing complete details of the charges. Copy of the relevant instruction under which the charges have been levied, has also to be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of the cases by Consumer Forums. No such separate bill shown to be sent to the complainant and nor copy of the relevant instructions under which charges to be levied, shown to be sent to the complainant and as such, violation of this rule also committed by Ops, while putting forth the demand in question through a composite current bill referred above. However to see a person committing theft of the electricity does not get undue benefit, the ends of justice warrants that Ops should be given liberty to restart the due process as per law, orders need to be passed accordingly, so that complainant may not get undue benefit of his own wrong( if any).

13.              Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that demand of Rs.1,46,126/- plus Rs.2924/- as surcharge i.e.Rs.1,49,150/- is quashed, but with observations that OPs will be at liberty to initiate the fresh process as per rules and regulations. If such process to be initiated, then separate show cause notice giving the details of amount sought to be assessed should be issued in writing to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After obtaining reply of the complainant(if any submitted by him), the process of assessment must be completed within two months therefrom. However, in case, complainant failed to submit reply or did not appear before the Assessing Officer after issuing of notice, then complainant may be proceeded ex-parte even by Ops. After final assessment of the due amount, complainant will be informed in writing qua the details of due amount by affording him a chance to pay that amount within certain period. Even the complainant will be informed about his right to file appeal before the authorities of PSPCL after final assessment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against Ops, whose liability held as joint and several. This amount of compensation and litigation expenses be paid by OPs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The amount, if any,deposited by the complainant as per term of order dated 29.4.2016 passed by this forum, will be adjusted in the future bills. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

14.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                           President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:02.03.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.