DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  667

                                                Instituted on:    19.12.2017

                                                Decided on:       10.05.2018

Birj Lal aged about 74 years son of Sh. Mukandi Lal, resident of Jain Colony, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Sanjeev Goyal, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Ms.Pooja Bahuguna, Advocate.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Birj Lal,  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 is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining one domestic electricity connection bearing account number S41JC460025A from the Ops and has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the OPs. Further case of the complainant is that in the month of December, 2016 the meter reader who used to get the reading found that the meter has stopped at the reading of 13684 units as shown in the earlier bill dated 30.11.2016 and according the bill for the month of January, 2017 was raised on the basis of average consumption of 318 units and in the month of March, 2017 the meter of the complainant was removed by the officials of the OPs. Further it is averred that at the time of the removal of the meter, it was not packed in the cardboard box nor any signatures of the complainant were obtained.  Thereafter the OPs issued notice number 1100 dated 14.9.2017 whereby the Ops demanded an amount of Rs.89,934/- alleging that the old meter which was removed was checked in the ME laboratory and found the final reading as 25871 as such the difference of unbilled reading i.e. 11706 units and demand of Rs.89,410/- was raised and subsequently this amount of Rs.89,410/- was added in the bill dated 1.12.2017, which is said to be wrong and illegal. Though the complainant approached the OPs for withdrawal of the said demand of Rs.89,934/- raised by the Ops, but of no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the said demand of Rs.89,934/- raised vide bill dated notice number 1100 dated 14.9.2017 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs.  However, it is stated that the demand is said to be raised as per the actual consumption i.e. final reading was found to be 25871.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 affidavit and copies of documents 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.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining the electricity connection in question. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the notice number 1100 dated 14.9.2017, whereby the OPs have raised a demand of Rs.89,934/-, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-16 and the amount has been charged on the consumption of 11706 units which was earlier billed.  But, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the meter in question became defective  in the month of December, 2016, which was removed in the month of March, 2017 and new meter was installed outside the premises of the complainant as was earlier installed.  It is the case of the Ops that the demand of Rs.89,934/- has been raised for unbilled consumption of 11706 units, but the learned counsel for the complainant has denied this fact in toto.

6.             At the outset, it is worth mentioning here that the meter in question was replaced in the month of March, 2017 being defective one,  but the old replaced meter was not checked in the ME laboratory, which is very necessary as per own regulations of the OPs. Though it is the case of the OPs that the meter in question was checked in the ME laboratory, but the complainant was not called for at the time of checking.  Further, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that though the electricity meter of the complainant was replaced by the OPs, but the same was not 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.89,934/- for 11706 units.    Further the learned counsel for the complainant has  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 the 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 discussed above.  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.  We further feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to charge the complainant for the disputed period on average basis of the previous six months.

7.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.89,934/-raised vide notice dated 14.9.2017, Ex.C-16 and further direct the Ops to raise the demand for the disputed period by taking the average of previous six months of the same period.    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.         

8.             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.

                May 10, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member