Punjab

Sangrur

CC/638/2017

Chamkaur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Vinay Kumar Jindal

22 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.  638

                                                Instituted on:    01.12.2017

                                                Decided on:       22.03.2018

 

Chamkaur Singh aged 60 years son of Jaswant Singh R/O Shaheed Uday Bhan Singh Nagar, Near Sidh Samadhan, Longowal, Sub Tehsil Longowal, Tehsil & District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     S.D.O./Asstt. Executive Engineer, PSPCL Sub Division, Longowal-I, Longowal, Sub Tehsil Longowal, Tehsil & District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Ritesh Garg, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Chamkaur Singh,  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 S53AD910961K from the Ops and has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the OPs. Further case of the complainant is that the meter of the complainant had burnt on 3.8.2017 and as such the complainant moved an application to the OP number 2 immediately asked for change of meter, as such the OP number 2 got deposited Rs.520/- vide receipt number 02 dated 28.8.2017 as meter change fee, which was later on changed.  In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill number 800 dated 12.10.2017 for 9435 units for Rs.72,490/- for the period from 15.09.2017 to 12.10.2017, which is said to be wrong and illegal as well as excessive one as the complainant never used the electricity to such an extent.  Though the complainant approached the Ops for withdrawal of the disputed demand, but all in vain. 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.72,490/- raised vide bill dated 12.10.2017 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 not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs by obtaining the connection in question. The case of the OPs is that the connection of the complainant was checked on 25.7.2017 and the connected load of the complainant was found to be 6.879 KW instead of sanctioned load of 0.58 KW as such the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.14020/- on 14.9.2017 as Rs.2220/- as advance consumption deposit charges, R.7000/- as load surcharge and Rs.4800/- as service connection charges. Thereafter it was found that the complainant had consumed 893 units for 65 days i.e. 12.8.2016 to 16.10.2016 and by calculating the load in view of this, it was found that the complainant had consumed 9435 units  and as such the bill for Rs.72,490/- has rightly been raised against 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 to Ex.C-22 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-6 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. It is further admitted that the meter of the complainant had burnt on 3.8.2017. But the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the meter of the complainant was checked on 25.7.2017 and the connected load was found to be 6.879 KW against the sanctioned load of 0.58 KW and as such after calculation the load surcharge, the consumption of the complainant was found to be 9435 units meaning thereby the amount of Rs.72,490/- has rightly been raised against the complainant. 

 

6.             At the outset, the case of the complainant is that he is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 12.10.2017 for Rs.72,490/- for the consumption of 9435 units, whereas his sanctioned load is only 0.580 KW. It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently that though the meter of the complainant had burnt and the same was replaced with a new one, but the old replaced meter was not checked in the ME laboratory, which is very necessary as per own regulations of the OPs.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that his connection was never checked on 25.7.2017 nor there is any documentary evidence on record produced by the Ops to show that the meter of the complainant was checked on 25.7.2017 by the officials of the OPs. 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.72,490/- for 9435 units. 

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the copies of the electricity bills, which shows that the sanctioned load of the complainant is only 0.700 KW.  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.

 

8.             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.72,490/-raised vide bill dated 12.10.2017 and further direct the Ops to raise the demand for the disputed period by taking the average of previous six months.    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.         

 

9.             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.

                March 22, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member