Punjab

Sangrur

CC/486/2016

Shankutla Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ashish Garg

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.  486

                                                Instituted on:    11.08.2016

                                                Decided on:       20.01.2017

 

Shakutla Devi wife of Shri Angoori Lal r/o Opposite Max Autos, Dhuri Road, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through its C.M.D, The Mall, Patiala.

 2.    AE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Distribution Sub Division, Badrukhan, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Ashish Garg, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Gagandeep Sibia, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Shakuntla Devi,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained one electricity connection from the OPs bearing account number S42RB560606H. It is further stated that the complainant has been using the electricity connection in question and paying the bills regularly to the OPs. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 16.9.2015 for Rs.35,680/- for 4646 units which is said to be excessive and illegal, whereas the previous reading was 580 units. As such, the complainant moved an application dated 23.9.2015 to the OP to withdraw the above said bill. The OP number 2 advised the complainant to challenge the meter and as such he deposited Rs.120/- as meter challenge fee and the complainant was further directed to deposit Rs.3710/- and the same were accordingly deposited by him with the OPs.   Further case of the complainant is that the OPs though changed the defective meter in the absence of the complainant, but no signatures were obtained on the MCO of the complainant or his representative. The complainant also moved an application before the DSC on 4.4.2016 for settlement and also deposited Rs.7000/- on 8.4.2016, meaning thereby he deposited total amount of Rs.10760/-. But, the DSC illegally and arbitrarily rejected the application of the complainant on 26.7.2016 without hearing her, which is said to be wrong and illegal even without checking the meter in the meter in the ME Laboratory.  Further the complainant received a notice dated 2.8.2016 whereby he was advised to deposit further amount of Rs.24,970/- within seven days, failing which to face disconnection of the electricity connection. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the notice dated 2.8.2016 and order dated 26.7.2016 and to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,710/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation and that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint.  On merits, it is stated that the bill in question has been issued as per the actual consumption which was consumed by the complainant.  It is admitted that the OPs on the application of the complainant changed the meter and installed new meter in place of old one as per the guidelines of the OPs. It is has been further stated that the DSC has rightly rejected the application of the complainant after giving due opportunity of being heard to the complainant. The report of the ME laboratory is said to be quite legal and genuine and as per the status of the old meter. It is stated that the amount has been rightly charged from the complainant. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill dated 16.9.2015, Ex.C-2 copy of letter dated 23.9.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of demand notice dated 23.9.2015, Ex.C-4 copy of receipt, Ex.C-5 copy of application dated 4.4.2016, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8 copies of letters and receipts, Ex.C-9 copy of ME lab report, Ex.C-10 copy of order, Ex.C-11 copy of letter, Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-17 copies of bills and receipts and Ex.C-18 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact the connection in question is running in the name of the complainant, as such, he is a consumer of the OPs under the connection in question. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 23.09.2015 for Rs.35,680/-, whereby the Ops have demanded an amount of Rs.35,680/- on account of consumption charges, which is said to be wrong and illegal.  The complainant also challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing Rs.120/- with the OPs, but the meter in question was never checked in the ME laboratory in his presence nor he was called at the time of checking of the meter in the ME laboratory.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the amount has been charged rightly as the meter in question at the time of checking in the ME laboratory was found quite OK.  But, the stand of the learned counsel for the complainant is that though the electricity meter of the complainant was replaced by the OPs, but the same was never packed and sealed in a card board box nor the same was checked in the ME laboratory in the presence of the complainant or his representative nor the complainant was ever called for at the time of checking of the electricity meter in question, as such he has prayed for quashing the disputed demand of Rs.35,680/-. 

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the copies of the electricity bills, which show that the sanctioned load of the complainant is 1.00 KW.  The Ops have not produced any copy of the MCO to show that the signatures of the complainant or his representative were ever obtained. Further the copy of the ME laboratory report, Ex.OP-4 nowhere shows that the complainant was called/present in the ME laboratory at the time of checking of the meter in the ME laboratory.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the removed meter in question was not packed and sealed as per the instructions contained in commercial circular number 8/99, which provides that as per the existing instructions contained in para 2 ( c) of CC number 45/97 dated 17.12.1997, it is mandatory that all meters removed against any MCO are to be sent to ME laboratories, in the sealed card box duly signed by the concerned PSEB officers/officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case, consumer refused to sign the meter test results/report, such meters shall be kept in the sealed box by the OP.S/Divn. till the final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Dispute Settlement Committee or Civil Courts, such sealed meter shall be returned to the ME laboratories. Similar procedure is to be adopted in case meters sealed by the Enforcement Agencies/Operation Organization in theft cases.”  But, in the present case, no such instructions have been followed by the Ops rather the same have been violated by the own officers/officials of the OPs.  There is nothing mentioned in the written reply of the OPs that whether the meter in question was packed in the cardboard box and thereafter it was sealed and signed by the complainant and officer/officials of the OPs.    The electricity meter in question was neither replaced in the presence of the consumer nor his representative as is evident from the copy of MCO, Ex.OP/2.  In Tarsem Singh versus Punjab State Electricity Board 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 584 (P&H), it has been held that checking of the defective meters should be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative.  A notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date, time and place of testing of meter.  Procedure prescribed to this effect in the Punjab State Electricity Board’s Commercial circulars number 45/98 and 8/99 is mandatory.  But, in the present case, there is no explanation that why such instructions as contained in the commercial circular number 8/99 were not adhered to by the OPs.  In these circumstances, we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

8.             We may mention that the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the complainant Shakuntla Devi ever appeared before the DSC or she was ever called to appear before the DSC.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the report of DSC is not at all helpful to the case of the OPs.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the bill dated  16.09.2015 for Rs.35,680/- and raise a fresh bill by taking the average of  six months of the same period of previous year.  The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.         

 

 

10.           This order of ours shall be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                January 20, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member