Punjab

Sangrur

CC/353/2017

Gurdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.J.S.Kaler

20 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

 

                                                Complaint No.  353

                                                Instituted on:    21.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       20.11.2017

 

Gurdeep Singh son of Piara Singh R/O Village Balial, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

 

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

2.     Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur through its SDO.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri J.S.Kaler, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Nachhattar Singh, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurdeep 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 father of the complainant, namely, Shri Piara Singh obtained one electricity connection bearing account number S41VR630203H, who has since died on 30.3.2014 and since then the complainant being the beneficiary has been using the connection in question and paying the electricity bills regularly.  The case of the complainant is that in the month of July, 2015, the OP number 2 replaced the electric meter of the complainant which was installed in the box outside the premises of the complainant and at the time of changing of the meter, it was not packed and sealed in the cardboard box nor the signature of the complainant were obtained as per the rules of the OPs.  The grievance of the complainant is that he received a bill dated 11.7.2017 for Rs.21,180/- in which an amount of Rs.14,112/- was added as sundry charges, which is said to be wrong and without any basis. The complainant approached the OPs for withdrawal of the said amount, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.14,112/- raised vide bill dated 11.07.2017 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 OPs have been dragged into unnecessary litigation, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs as the connection in question is running in the name of father of the complainant Shri Piara Singh.  It is admitted that the OPs issued bill dated 10.7.2017 for Rs.21,180/- wherein an amount of Rs.14,112/- has been charged as sundry charges.  The case of the OPs is that the meter installed in the house of the consumer became dead and thereafter OP number 2 issued MCO number 21/103272 dated 10.9.2015 which was effected on 10.9.2015 and at the time of removal of the old meter its reading was not visible.  Thereafter the meter in question was checked and opened in the ME laboratory Sangrur on 27.4.2016 and its reading was found to be 9365 units and the bill was prepared only up to 6769 units, as such the account of the complainant was overhauled and the amount of Rs.14,112/- was found recoverable from the complainant.  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 to Ex.C-7 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-12 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 between the parties that the father of the complainant, Shri Piara Singh obtained the connection in question, who has now died on 30.3.2014 and since then the complainant has been using the connection and paying the bills regularly and the complainant has produced on record the copy of death certificate of Shri Piara Singh, which is on record as Ex.C-7, as such we are of the considered opinion that the complainant being the beneficiary of the connection has been using the connection and paying the bills, as such his complaint is fully maintainable.

 

6.             The complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 11.07.2017 for Rs.21,180/- in which an amount of Rs.14,112/- has been added as sundry charges, which is said to be wrong and illegal one.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended further that the demand of Rs.14,112/- added as sundry charges on the basis of unbilled reading is wrong and without any basis, as no reading has been mentioned on the MCO.  If there was reading of 9365 units at the time of removal of the meter then the same must have been written on the meter change order.  On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the reading at the time of removal of the meter was not visible rather it was read only in the ME laboratory when the meter was sent for checking.  We have very carefully perused the meter change order dated 10.9.2015 Ex.OP-1, but it no where contains the signature of the complainant or its authorised agent nor it contains any mention of the reading at the time of removal of the meter.  Further the complainant was not called for at the time of checking of the meter, which is very necessary as per own regulations of the OPs.  Further, the learned counsel for the complainant is that though the electricity meter of the complainant was replaced by the OPs against MCO dated 10.09.2015, Ex.OP-1, 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.14,112/-. 

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the copies of the electricity bills, which show that the sanctioned load of the complainant is 2.84 KW.  The Ops have also produced on record the copy of meter change order Ex.OP-1, but a bare perusal of it shows that the same does not bear the signature of the complainant nor of any official of the OPs, which were very necessary, as such we feel that this document has no value in the eye of law. Further the OPs have not produced any copy of the ME laboratory report on record to show that the complainant was present there at the time of checking of the meter in question in the ME laboratory.

 

8.             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 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 is evident from the copy of MCO, Ex.OP/3.  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.

 

9.             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.14,112/-raised vide bill dated 11.07.2017.  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  further to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.         

 

10.           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.

                November 20, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member