BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.102 of 2022
Date of Instt. 29.03.2022
Date of Decision: 23.08.2023
Gurdeep Kaur W/o Sh. Sewa Singh R/o H. No.74, Panch Rattan Colony, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/Managing Director.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Commercial Unit No.3, Birring, Jalandhar Cantt.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. Chandandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for OPs.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide electric connection no.3000461875 having load of 1.89 KW, under the jurisdiction of OP No.2. The said connection is installed in shop of mechanic of Air Conditioner/refrigerator. The said connection is installed in shop since last many years and said shop is only source of livelihood for the complainant and her family. The complainant along with her son namely Baban Deep Singh is doing the petty job work of repairing Air Conditioners/ refrigerators. In the month of September, 2021, the meter reader visited the complainant to record the reading recorded by electricity meter installed outside the premises of complainant. The said meter reader observed that meter has gone erratic and is moving very fast and not recording consumption. The said meter reader apprised the Sub Divisional Officer/ AEE/OP No.2, who deputed the Junior Engineer to conduct the necessary checking. The concerned Junior Engineer visited the complainant on 29.09.2021 to ascertain defect in the meter and observed that meter is moving exorbitantly fast and has recorded abnormal consumption and reading of the meter has jumped manifolds and meter is even recording consumption when all tubes/bulbs/fans/gadgets are turned off. The OPs removed the defective meter on 29.09.2021. The removed meter was neither packed nor sealed as per the requirement of law and it was taken in naked condition by the officials of OPs. On 12.11.2021, the complainant received the exorbitant bill of Rs.1,16,671/- for the period 02.06 2021 to 29.09.2021 for 14072 units, recorded by fast defective meter. The complainant has already challenged the impugned bill date 12.11.2021 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar. Surprisingly on 26.03.2022, the complainant received memo dated 732 dated 21.03.2022 wherein demand of Rs.1,74,662/- was made on the averments that at the time of removal of meter on 29.09.2021 reading of meter was 36718 and at the time of checking of the meter in ME Lab reading of meter was 56718 hence amount of Rs.1,74,662/- is being charged as difference of units (56718-36718= 20000). The complainant was directed to deposit the amount within 10 days. The complainant is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,74,662/- being difference of units as complainant has not consumed any electricity though meter which was removed on 29.09.2021. The said removed meter remained in custody of opposite parties. The demand of Rs.1,74,662/- relates to removed meter. The act of OPs in claiming the amount of Rs.1,74,662/- vide Memo No.732 dated 21.03.2022 cannot withstand test of reason, justice, equity and prudence. If the entire connected load of premises of complainant is put on use uninterruptedly/continuously for period of two years, even then there cannot be consumption of 20000 units. Removed meter under challenge was liable to be checked in ME Lab within in maximum period of 15 days in the presence of consumer as per mandatory provisions of law but no notice was served to the complainant with regard to the checking of meter, intimating him time, date and venue of ME Lab, in forbiddance to law. Otherwise also the consumption pattern does not support the impugned memo. Checking, if any done in ME Lab unilaterally by OPs without calling the complainant in ME Lab devoid force of law. The OPs have not made any communiqué with the complainant with regard to checking of meter in ME Lab if any. It is the duty of OPs to install correct serviceable meter. The complainant has not bestowed any authority to opposite parties to check the meter of complainant in her absence. Moreso, the removed meter was neither packed nor sealed in the presence of complainant or her representative. The above act of OPs in raising illegal and unlawful demand and threats of disconnection has cast a cloud over the lawful rights of the complainant and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to set aside the impugned amount of Rs.1,74,662/- vide memo no.732 dated 21.03.2022 and further to restrain the OPs from disconnecting the electric connection of complainant on the basis of impugned amount. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses and to grant interest @ 18% on the payments which the complainant may have to deposit to avoid disconnection.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arose against the complainant to file the present Complainant against the answering OP. It is further averred that the Complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission thus is not entitled to a relief from this Commission, Actual fact is this the present complaint attracts the principal of Res sub judice to make it more clear one more consumer complaint bearing case number CC/96/2022 filed by the complainant on the same cause of action against the same parties to the complaint qua the same connection. It is further averred that the complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious within the knowledge of the complainant, thus liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable under the Law, to make it more clear this commission is having no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as this alleged by the complainant this is a case of running of meter moving very fast and not recording the actual consumption, to prove this fact it requires the detail evidence and that cannot be tried in the summary proceedings. It is further averred that the Complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct admission and omissions from filing the present complaint against the answering defendants. Actual fact is this account number 3000461875 is running on the name of Gurdeep kaur w/o Sewa Singh Dhilwan having sanctioned load - 1.890 KW and the said connection is running under NRS category, as per the LRC no.45/164 dated 21-11-2020 the connection of the meter was checked and found that the body of the meter was cracked, meter was changed on dated 29-09-2021 through the M.E. 2/30/790 meter was replaced and at that time old meter reading was 56718 KWH as per MCO no.100011047703, thereafter meter got checked vide store challan number 26 dated 14-02-2022 and ME lab reported that ‘Terminal block damaged at incoming side. Tightening screws on TB broken. Open screws seen inside the meter. Thus the meter cannot be tested on bench.’ In system final reading of meter was entered in SAP system as 36718 KW. on getting challan the difference of 20000 units was charged to consumer and notice number 732 dated 21-03-2022 was issued and sent to consumer of Rs.1,74,662/-. Further it was clearly mentioned in the notice that in case consumer is not satisfied with the above mentioned report he can file appeal before dispute settlement committee, consumer neither filed any appeal /objections before the appellant authority. It is worthwhile to mention here in that the Complainant deposited amount of Rs.87331/- but actually Complainant needs to deposit Rs.145666/-. To make it more clear Complainant filed two no. cases aggregating the amount challenged by the Complainant amounts to Rs.291333/- But Complainant deposited Rs.87331/- amount. Keeping in view the above said facts the present Complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the factum with regard to installation of the electricity connection is admitted and it is also admitted that in the month of September 2021 the meter reader visited the complainant to record the reading, recorded by electricity meter, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The contention of the OPs is that the complaint is not maintainable as on the same cause of action, another complaint is pending, but this contention is not tenable as in the other complaint no.96 of 2022 the impugned bill Ex.C-1 showing Rs.1,16,671/- has been challenged, whereas in the present complaint, the complainant has challenged the memo Ex.C-2/OP-4, wherein it has been mentioned that during inspection in ME Lab reading was found as 56718. So, there is difference of 20,000 units. Thus, this is new cause of action. The cause of action in both the cases is different. So, the complaint is maintainable.
7. It is admitted and proved that the complainant is the consumer of electricity connection no.3000461875. It is also admitted that in the month of September, 2021, the Meter Reader visited the complainant to record the reading installed outside the premises of the complainant. It is also admitted that there was defect in the meter and the same was changed on 29.09.2021.
8. The OPs have denied that the meter was running very fast rather it has been alleged that there were cracks on the meter, which were found by the officials of the OP on 21.11.2020. There is a report of the officials of the OP on Ex.OP-2. It has categorically been mentioned in this report that the body of the meter is crack and the seals of the meter are also suspicious, but at that time no action was taken by the OPs nor the meter was removed nor changed nor replaced nor any repair of the cracks was made. It was only on 29.09.2021 when the meter reader checked the reading and found the meter defective and the same was replaced.
9. The complainant has alleged that since the meter was running very fast and the complainant received exorbitant bill of Rs.1,16,671/- for the period 02.06.2021 to 29.09.2021 for 14072 units and again he received memo dated 21.03.2022 when the demand of Rs.1,74,662/- was raised by the OPs. The memo has been proved as Ex.C-2. The complainant has also produced on record the bills of the previous period showing the consumption of 304 and 248 units, vide Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4. The units in the impugned bill have been mentioned as 14072 units in three months when the complainant is using the meter and the units consumed are not more than 300 for the period of two months. Due to this reason, only the meter was removed and it was sent to ME Lab. The same was checked in the ME Lab. As per allegations of the complainant, the removed meter was neither packed nor sealed as per requirement of the law and it was taken in naked condition by the officials of the OP, but the OP has not produced on record any document to show that the meter was removed and was duly packed as per requirement of law in the presence of the complainant, nothing has been proved on record by the OPs.
10. The OPs have relied upon the report of the ME Lab Ex.OP-3. Perusal of this report shows that after inspection of meter it was found that ‘Terminal block damaged at incoming side. Tightening screws on TB broken. Open screws seen inside the meter. Thus the meter cannot be tested on bench.’ The OPs has not produced on record any document to show that the meter was checked in ME Lab in the presence of the complainant as per requirement of law nor they have produced on record any consent of the complainant authorizing the OP to check the meter in the absence of the complainant. As per the instructions in the Supply Code, the meter is to be removed in the presence of the consumer and the same is also to be checked in the ME Lab in the presence of the consumer or his her representative or with the consent of the consumer, if any, only then the meter can be checked in the absence of the consumer, but there is nothing on the record to prove that the meter was removed and checked in the presence of the consumer i.e. complainant. It has been held by the Hon'ble Punjab State Commission, in FA No.1558 of 2011, decided on 19.03.2015, 2015 (2) CLT 222, titled as ‘Jagat Pal Vs. PSPCL Ltd. & Others’, that 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) Electricity - Exorbitant bills Complaint alleging deficiency in service - Failure on part of OP in their duties by not providing any guidance to complainant nor they told him to deposit the meter checking fees for getting the meter tested in the ME Lab - OP was under obligation to get the matter investigated at their own level and take appropriate action to check the working of the meter or to justify the excessive consumption recorded by it on account of some other occasions like marriage function of the complainant - In view of the instructions of the OPs, the exception in variations in consumption is to be verified after entering the same in the variation register, which was not done by the OPs.'
11. As per the instructions in the Supply Code, 2014 the distribution licensee shall inspect and check correctness of a meter within seven working days of receipt of a complaint or report by its authorized official/officer/representative. If the meter is defective (i.e. it is struck up, running slow, fast or creeping), the distribution licensee shall replace the meter within ten working days of receiving the complaint or report by its authorized official. In the present case, the meter was not changed within stipulated time as it remained defective from 21.11.2020 to 29.09.2021, which is in violation of instructions in the supply code.
As per report Ex.OP-2 dated 21.11.2020, it has been mentioned that the body of the meter is crack and the seals of the meter are also suspicious, but at that time no action was taken by the OPs nor the meter was removed nor changed nor replaced rather the same was changed on 29.09.2021 after 10 months.
It has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, cited in 1995(2) CPJ 70, titled as “Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Ashok Kumar”, which is as under:-
“The meter of the respondent remained non functional for about two years and thereafter, it was replaced by the appellant. The District Forum rightly noticed that the primal responsibility of the correct metering of electric energy lies on the Board and its equipment unless tampering or other malpractice is established. It seems right in its view that the respondent cannot be held liable for the fault of the meter, if any and it is for the appellant-Board to either have checked the same or replaced if it was defective. The District Forum was right in holding that unless it is established that the respondent had either tampered or consumed more electricity than shown in the bills, he cannot be arbitrarily burdened with additional charges.”
In the present case, as per the rules and instruction the defective meter is to be changed within 10 working days and it is the responsibility of the board. Thus the complainant cannot be held liable as there are no allegations of any malpractice or tempering with the meter by the complainant.
12. It has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in 2006(46) R.C.R. (Civil) 902, case titled as ‘Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Subhash Sood’ that ‘Meter defective from 12.9.1999 Changed only on 21.8.2000- Under Section 26(6), maximum period for which bill on average basis can be raised in case of defective/dead meter is 6 months and not for the entire period the meter remains defective or dead. O.P. directed to raise fresh bill only for period of 6 months, after calculating average as per commercial Circular No.13/96 - Extra payments, if already made by complainant, to be either refunded or adjusted in future bills.’
As per Electricity Supply Instruction Manual 93.1, which reads as under:-
“There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment or demand / load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/ multiplication factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities etc. In all such cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied.
As per this circular, in all the such cases of burnt meter or wrong meter or defective meter, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. In the present case, no separate bill has been issued nor there is any complete details.
13. From the above detailed discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, it has emerged that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and bill issued by the OPs dated 21.03.2022 amounting to Rs.1,74,622/- is hereby set-aside. Extra payment made by the complainant to the OP by way of arrears of the above said period and charged in subsequent bills already paid by the complainant as per order of the Commission dated 30.03.2022 be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in future bill. Further, OPs are directed to raise fresh bill, if any amount is due. Further, OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental torture, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance i.e. compensation and litigation expenses be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
14. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
23.08.2023 Member President
