DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  198

                                                Instituted on:    11.05.2017

                                                Decided on:       28.08.2017

Fateh Singh son of Narinder Singh, resident of Elwal, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

 2.    SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division (Rural) Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Mohd. Izhar, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Ms.Rajni Gandhi, Advocate.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Fateh 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 3001239186 and has been paying the bills regularly.  The case of the complainant is that in the month of March or April 2016, meter of the complainant was burnt without any fault of the complainant and the Ops installed a new meter in the month of August 2016 in a pillar box at the distance of 400 yards from the house of the complainant.  The grievance of the complainant is that he received a bill dated 23.8.2016 for Rs.40710/- which is very excessive one. Further case of the complainant is that on 6.9.2016 the Ops also got deposited an amount of Rs.120/- from the complainant on account of meter challenge fee.  The case of the complainant is that he never used the electricity to such an extent and the bill in question is excessive one.  Further case of the complainant is that the OPs also got deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 5.9.2016 and further an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 30.3.2017 from the complainant forcibly, which he deposited under protest.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw/quash the demand of Rs.40710/- raised through bill dated 23.8.2016 after adjusting the actual consumption and refund the excess amount and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum.  On merits, it has been admitted that the meter of the complainant had burnt and as such the bills were sent on average basis.  It is further admitted that the demand of Rs.40710/- was raised against the complainant and it is stated that the demand has rightly been raised against the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 copies of the bills and receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-11 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.             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. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 23.8.2010 for Rs.40710/-, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2. Further case of the complainant is that since the meter of the complainant had been burnt in the month of March or April, 2016, as such the Ops replaced the burnt meter with a new one.  But, a bare perusal of the written reply shows that the Ops have mentioned nothing about such a demand of the bill.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the Ops did not give any details about the demand so raised in the bill in question Ex.C-2.  Further a bare perusal of the letter Ex.C-6 shows that the complainant also challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing Rs.120/- and accordingly the OPs checked the meter in the ME laboratory Sangrur, but the grievance of the complainant is that he was not called at the time of checking of the meter in the ME laboratory nor it is shown that the meter of the complainant has been checked in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative, which is a clear cut violation of the own instructions of the OPs.  Further it is worth mentioning here that the consumption so charged by the OPs in the bill dated 23.8.2016 is so much excessive and is not admissible, whereas the average consumption of the complainant was not so much high. There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why at the time of removal of the old meter the reading at that time was not mentioned by the official who removed the old and defective meter. 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.40,710/-. 

6.             We have very carefully perused the copies of the electricity bills, which show that the sanctioned load of the complainant is 2.560 KW.  The Ops have not produced any copy of the MCO  showing that the signatures of the complainant or his representative were ever obtained at the time of effective the meter change order. Further the copy of the ME laboratory report, Ex.OP-9 and Ex.OP-10 nowhere show that the complainant was called to come 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/6.  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.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the bill dated 23.8.2016 demanding an amount of Rs.40,710/- 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.         

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.

                August 28, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member