Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/114

Ved Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ram Parkash Adv.

29 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                    CC No: 114 of 25.02.2015

                                                                   Date of Decision: 29.05.2015   

Ved Parkash aged 54 years son of Sh.Dewan Chand, resident of 2585, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana. 

..…Complainant

Versus 

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Model Town, through its Assistant Executive Engineer(Comml), Ludhiana.

…..Opposite party 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

 

Present:       Sh.R.P.Bansal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.A.S.Walia, Advocate for OP. 

 

                                            ORDER

 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Ved Parkash(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Model Town, through its Assistant Executive Engineer(Comml), Ludhiana(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OP’)- directing them to withdraw their illegal demand which has been raised through supplementary bill issued on 17.11.2014 for Rs.2,39,246/- alongwith Rs.1 lakh as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is consumer of Electricity Connection bearing a/c No.W31GC310353(old W31SN346359) lying installed outside the house of the complainant at 2585, Phase-I, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana in a box and the said connection is purely a domestic connection and whatever the electricity has been consumed by the complainant for domestic/residential purposes and the complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly. The complainant hired the service of the OP for availing new domestic connection in 7/2011 and completed all the formailities alongwith deposited the requisite charges and the OP released the new connection under Domestic Tariff for 15 Kw outside the premises in the pillar box. As per bill dated 16.6.2014 issued by the OP, account No.W31 GC 310353(old W31SN346359) was issued. The OP vide memo No.784 dated 17.6.2014 claimed Rs.3,59,475/- by due date of 30.6.2014 and thereafter, disclosed payable amount of Rs.3,90,822/- inclusive of surcharge of Rs.31,347/- and further, given the reference of LCR 11/632 dated 13.4.2014 in the said bill notice. In the said bill, the OP claiming the bill for 38 months for the period 20.4.2011 to 15.6.2014 against calculation of 1440 units per months against the status of the meter as “D” means dead. The said demand is claimed to illegal, arbitrary as it is not binding on the complainant as well as it is not possible due to violation of mandatory provision of EA2003 etc. Firstly, the complainant has no knowledge of conducting checking dated 3.4.2014 through LCR 11/632 because meter is not existing in side of the premises of the complainant, rather the same is fixed on the pillar box outside the premises of the complainant alongwith other meter of the resident of the said area, so the alleged checking and its contents are not in the knowledge of the complainant due to non conducting of said checking in his presence. After releasing new domestic connection in 7/2011 to the complainant, the OP failed to issue the bi-monthly bills of consumption as per provision of sale regulations/norms etc, as such, the OP violated the provisions of sales regulation by not sending bi-monthly bills and further, the OP cannot charge the bill w.e.f.4.2.2011 to 15.6.2014 for 38 months as per the Electricity Act, 2003, the OP is not liable/competent to claim the alleged dues after the expiry of two years, as the meter was indicated as “D” means Dead Stop as the OP cannot charge the consumption charges more than 6 months as per the provisions of Electricity Act/Rules and Regulations of OP. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before this District Forum vide CC No.451 of 20.6.2014 which was decided on 29.9.2014, vide which, the demand raised by OP from the complainant was quashed alongwith surcharge and OP was further directed to reopen and reexamine the case of the complainant and thereafter, to overhaul the account of the complainant after serving him 7 days prior notice to appear in person to reassess the demand/amount of consumption charges, if any recoverable from the complainant alongwith compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The complainant received a supplementary bill of account No.W31GC310353(old W31SN346359) lying installed outside the house of the complainant at the aforesaid address, dated 17.11.2014 for Rs.2,08,788/- and an amount of Rs.30,458/- as surcharge, total amounting to Rs.2,39,246/-. Further, OP cannot charge the Bill w.e.f.4.2.2011 to 15.6.2014 for 38 months as per Electricity Act, 2003, the Op is no liable to claim the alleged dues as the meter was indicated as “D” means Dead Stop as the OP cannot charge the consumption charges more than 6 months as per the provision of Electricity Act/Rules. Moreover, the complainant has already deposited an amount of Rs.1,95,411/- and the OP deducted the amount of compensation of Rs.22,000/-. In the aforesaid bill, no detail of Rs.2,39,246/- has been shown and the same has been allegedly demanded, to which, the complainant is not liable to pay the same. However, the complainant is also legally entitled to get refund of the said amount of Rs.1,95,411/- alongwith compensation of Rs.22,000/- and interest thereon from the date of deposit till the realization of the entire amount. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OP was duly served and appeared through Sh.A.S.Walia, Advocate and filed the written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. Earlier, on same cause of action, one complaint No.451 dated 20.6.2014 was filed by the complainant which was decided on 29.9.2014 and this District Forum while deciding that complainant quashed the demand earlier raised through supplementary bill total amounting to Rs.3,90,822/- and in the para no.11 of the order mentioned that OP should reopen and re-examine the case of the complainant and after serving 7 days prior notice to appear in person in his presence to reassess the demand recoverable from the complainant on the basis of their record. It was also mentioned in that para of order that fresh demand be raised keeping in view of provision of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Op was also directed to pay compensation of RS.20,000/- alongwith the costs of Rs.2000/- total Rs.22,000/- to the complainant. The Op was also directed to adjust the amount which has already been deposited by the complainant within the pendency of the complaint and were also directed to call the explanation of erring official who was responsible for not reporting the matter and not recording the consumption of electricity meter of the complainant for effecting the recovery of bills well in time. As per said order, the compliance was duly made by the answering OP and answering OP after complying with all directions of this District Forum again revised the account of connection account No.SN34/6359 old and GC31/353 New and as per fresh calculation made by the applying (LDHF Formula) due to dead meter. After adjusting the amount already deposited by the complainant and also adjusted cost and compensation Rs.22,000/- awarded to the complainant in earlier complaint found that sum of Rs.21,835/- was still recoverable from the complainant by applying LDJF formula and thus, supplementary bill was issued on 17.11.2014 to the complainant but inspite of depositing the balance amount of Rs.21,835/-, the complainant now again has challenged the revised calculation made by the answering OP as per direction of this District Forum. This complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed being without any cause of action. The complainant has not filed any appeal against the order of this District Forum passed in earlier complaint on 29.9.2014 nor answering Op has any knowledge of the same. So, order of this Hon’ble District Forum dated 29.9.2014 passed in earlier complaint has become final and has been duly complied with as directed by this Hon’ble District Forum to answering OP. Reply on facts, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant is consumer of connection in question as alleged by the complainant. It is submitted that earlier billing against the said connection was not done from the date   of releasing connection till February, 2014 and lateron supplementary bill alongwith surcharge total Rs.3,90,822/- was issued which was challenged by the complainant in earlier complaint. Further, it is admitted that electric connection was released through SCO issued in April, 2011 having sanction load of 20 KW. However, old and new account Number allotted to the complainant’s connection is admitted. It is admitted that earlier on the request of the complainant, premises was checked on 3.4.2014 and in LCR NO.11/632, it was mentioned that meter was lying dead stop and no bill was being issued against the said connection. It is denied that the answering OP cannot recover consumption charges more than 6 months as per provision of Section 56(2) of Electricity Act, 2003. Further, it is submitted that the complainant was fully explained how and for which period amount was calculated by them and complainant was fully satisfied but lateron, he refused to deposit the balance amount with the answering OP reason best known to him. Nothing is payable to the complainant as mentioned by the complainant. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, answering OP made prayer for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Both the parties have adduced their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the evidence as well as file very carefully.

6.                Perusal of document Ex.R1 Consumer Load Checking Register which has been relied upon by the OP reveals that the meter of the complainant was dead stop on the date of checking. There is nothing in the evidence of the OP that the said meter was ever sent to the ME Lab by the OP for the purpose of its checking and further, no report was submitted by the M.E.Lab made after checking of the meter of the complainant.

7.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that as per Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, in case of defective meter/inoperative meter, average more than 6 months can be charged by the OP. However, in the present case, average has been charged for a longer period then the 6 months. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has not denied to the provision of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, on the basis of which, an average bill is charged by the OP qua the defective meter.

8.                Since, it is proved fact on record that at the time of checking, the meter of the complainant was found to be dead stop and as per the provision of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual i.e. 54 Resealing of Meters etc (54.6 Defective/Inoperative Meter) which provides for the defective/inoperative meter which describe as under:-

“if the meter is found to be running slow by more than 3%. It shall be replaced with a new meter. The meter on removal must be sent to the ME Laboratory within a maximum period of one week and accounts of the consumer shall be adjusted on receipt of the test results from the ME Lab for a period not exceeding 6 months preceding the date the checking. Compliance of these instructions shall be personal responsibility of AE/AEE/Sr.Xen concerned.”

9.                So, it is apparently clear from the aforesaid provisions of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual that OP was only entitled to charge the complainant qua his meter in question for a period of 6 months after the receipt of the report of the ME Lab. However, in the present case, the meter was not sent to the ME Lab nor the report was received from the ME Lab. So, the demand raised by the OP from the complainant qua the defective meter appears to be illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be quashed.

10.              In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and hereby quash the demand of Rs.2,39,246/- raised vide bill dated 17.11.2014 from the complainant and direct the OP to reassess the demand after taking into consideration the aforesaid provisions of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual qua the dead stop meter after receiving the report from M.E.Lab qua the meter of the complainant and after receiving the report from the ME Lab, Op is further directed to overhaul the account of the complainant after serving 7 days prior notice upon the complainant to come present and to raise a fresh demand from the complainant and to give him sufficient time to deposit the amount due, if any. However, the complainant shall continue to pay the current bills as per the consumption recorded by the electric meter. Amount if any, deposited by the complainant during the pendency of the complainant shall also be adjusted by the Ops in account of the complainant. Further, OP is burdened with Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

                                      (Babita)                                             (R.L.Ahuja)                                                Member                                             President            

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:29.05.2015 

GurpreetSharma