BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 05 of 2014

Date of Instt. 3.1.2014

Date of Decision :3.12.2014

Seema Joshi aged about 44 years, wife of Ravinder Kumar, R/o VPO Jandu Singha, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2. Assistance Executive Engineer, Commercial Unit No.3(East), Sub Division Birring, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.MK Mehta Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.SKS Chhabra Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is a consumer of electricity, vide electric connection No.J63NH230522K installed at the residential premises of the complainant at village Jandu Singha, Tehsil & District Jalandhar. The electricity meter of the complainant is regularly checked by the officers/officials of the opposite parties and at least once in every two months while taking the reading of consumption for issuance of energy bills. The average bill amount during the consumption period of two months used to be between Rs.1500/- to Rs.3000/-, which the complainant used to deposit regularly with the opposite parties. On 19.10.2013, the meter reader visited the premises of the complainant and the reading as on the meter was taken by him and at that time the reading was 1350 and for the earlier bill dated 20.8.2013, the reading was 1050. In this way, during the period from 20.8.2013 to 19.10.2013, the consumption was 300 units as recorded by the meter reader for which bill for Rs.1750/- was issued to the complainant and the same was deposited by her with the opposite parties. It may be mentioned here that the status of the electricity meter on all these bills is mentioned as 'O', meaning thereby that the meter was in ok condition. The complainant went to Chandigarh on 20.12.2013 and when she came back on 25.12.2013, she picked up one bill dated 21.12.2013, from near the gate and remained stunned to note that it was for huge amount of Rs.68550/-. On further going through the bill, the complainant noticed that the date of reading of this bill was 21.12.2013 and the reading was 343 and the earlier reading date was 30.10.2010 and the reading was only 1. In this way, there was consumption of 343 units during the period from 30.10.2013 to 21.12.2013 and this was the routine average units used to be consumed in the premises of the complainant during the period of two months and the complainant is ready to pay for the actual consumption i.e for 343 units. But the complainant was surprised to see, how bill for huge amount of Rs.68,550/- was issued to her. On 26.12.2013, the complainant alongwith her father-in-law went to the office of opposite party No.2 and asked him to correct the bill as per actual consumption, but the opposite party No.2 after going through the bill told the complainant that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was replaced with a new meter, because the earlier meter was found defective, as it had shown huge reading due to over jump and that the earlier meter has been sent to ME Lab for checking and also told the complainant that at present she will have to deposit the entire amount of the bill, otherwise the electricity connection of the complainant will be disconnected in due course of time. The opposite parties removed the electricity meter of the complainant, illegally and without following the prescribed procedure, rules and regulations, therefore, subsequent invalid inspection by the ME Lab if any, has no value in the eyes of law and is not binding upon the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for setting aside the impugned bill dated 21.12.2013. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding mis joinder and non joinder of necessary party, want of cause of action, limitation, jurisdiction etc. They further pleaded that infact the reading of the meter of the complainant was noted as 9425 by the meter reader. But when the meter was removed the exact reading of the meter was noted as 1050 meaning thereby there is difference of 8375 units. The opposite party is only claiming the amount of the electricity consumed by the consumer/complainant, which the complainant is bound to pay, as per law. Infact as per the report of the J.E, the meter of the complainant was removed. It is worthwhile to mention here that when the meter reader noted down the reading of the meter i.e 9425 units consumed by the consumer but when the meter was removed the reading of the meter reveals that 1050 units were consumed by the consumer. The department is only claiming the difference of units and claiming only the legal charges from the complainant and nothing else. They denied other material averments of the complaint.

3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB along with copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C7 and closed her evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsel for both the parties.

6. Copy of impugned bill dated 21.12.2013 is Ex.C-7 on record. It is for Rs.68550/-. The period of the bill is from 30.10.2013 to 21.12.2013. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed on record copy of letter given by A.E.E, Commercial Unit-3, Jalandhar. In this letter it is mentioned as under:-

" It is certified that amount charged to the consumer pertains to difference of units consumed by consumer as per MCO No.35/60635 dated 25.12.2013 and final reading 9425. It is said that reading taken on 19.10.2013 was 1350 and final reading as per MCO is 9425. Such a high difference of units may not be possible within a span of 11 days. Meter may have jumped or other way it may be the concealment of reading case".

7. Ex.C-1 is bill where old reading is mentioned as 1050 and new reading as 1350. It is for the period of 20.8.2013 to 19.10.2013. As per above letter, meter change order is dated 25.10.2013 and at the time of change of meter i.e 30.10.2013final reading was 9425. When the reading on 19.10.2013 was 1350 then it is not possible that on 30.10.2013 the reading was 9425. It is not possible that within 11 days the complainant/consumer consumed 9425-1350 = 8075 units. So the meter might have jumped. In the above said letter given by A.E.E, Commercial Unit-3, Jalandhar, it is also stated that such a high difference of units may not be possible and meter may have jumped. So it appears that high consumption recorded by meter was due to jumping of digit of the meter.

8. Consequently, the present complaint is accepted and the impugned demand raised by the opposite parties vide bill dated 21.12.2013 Ex.C-7 is set-aside. However the opposite parties are directed to charge the complainant/consumer on the basis of average consumption taking consumption of the period in question during the corresponding period of previous year. The complainant is awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sump on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

3.12.2014 Member President