Punjab

Sangrur

CC/587/2017

Gurinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Ramit Pathak

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

 

                                                Complaint No.  587

                                                Instituted on:    02.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       06.04.2018

 

Gurinder Singh son of Jarnail Singh R/O Village Mangwal, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     Asstt. Executive Engineer, (SDO) PSPCL, Sub Division, (Rural), Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Ramit Pathak, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member.

 

1.             Shri Gurinder 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 3000717430 and has been paying the bills regularly. 

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that earlier the complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties, whereby this Forum directed the opposite parties to withdraw the demand of Rs.1,84,894/- raised vide bill dated 17.3.2017 and further it was ordered to raise the fresh demand after checking of the disputed electricity meter in the ME laboratory as per the rules.  The meter of the complainant was never checked in the ME laboratory in the presence of the complainant rather the OPs again sent the bill dated 22.9.2017 for 157 days of 2253 units and demanded Rs.1,85,760/- including Rs.1,70,033/- on account of sundry charges.  Thereafter the complainant again approached the Ops for correction of the bill dated 22.9.2017, 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.1,70,033/- raised vide bill dated 22.09.2017 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation and that the present complaint is false and frivolous one.  On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs under the connection in question.  It is also admitted that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint which was decided on 3.8.2017 with the liberty to the OPs to check the meter in the ME laboratory in the presence of the consumer.  Further it is stated that the actual facts are that the Ops after passing the court order dated 3.8.2017 written a letter number 1764 dated 11.8.2017 to the complainant to ensure his presence for checking his meter in the ME laboratory in his presence on 14.8.2017 at about 10.00 AM, but the concerned officials of the ME laboratory refused to check the meter in the ME laboratory and demanded the specific order for the same and due to this reason, the meter was not checked in the ME laboratory.  As such, it is stated that thereafter the amount was charged from the complainant, which is said to be quite legal and genuine.  Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 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-7 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence.

 

5.             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.

 

6.             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 complainant earlier filed a complaint number 144 on 7.4.2017, which was decided on 3.8.2017, a copy of the order is Ex.C-4, whereby this Forum passed the order “we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.1,82,894/- raised vide bill dated 17.3.2017. Further opposite parties are directed to take necessary appropriate action against the concerned officials, who are responsible for keeping the dismantled meter for such a long and for not sending the same to the ME laboratory for its checking and not effecting the MCO dated 8.8.2016 as per the regulations of the PSPCL. However, it will be open for the OPs to raise a fresh demand after checking of the disputed meter in the ME laboratory as per the rules….”

 

7.             In the present case, it is surprised that the Ops even without checking of the meter despite the direction to the OPs vide our orders dated 3.8.2017, refused to check the meter in the ME laboratory and the said demand of Rs.1,70,033/- was again raised vide bill dated 22.9.2017 on account of sundry charges.  It is worth mentioning here that the OPs are working in so negligent manner and are not bothering about the orders of this Forum passed vide our orders dated 3.8.2017 and raised the demand of Rs.1,70,033/- in the bill dated 22.9.2017 on account of sundry charges, as is evident from the copy of the bill on record as Ex.C-5. 

 

8.             Further it is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently that though the meter of the complainant  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.   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.1,70,033/- raised vide bill dated 22.9.2017, Ex.C-5 on account of sundry charges. 

 

9.             We have very carefully perused the copies of the electricity bills, which shows that the sanctioned load of the complainant is only 3.00 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, despite the fact that this Forum directed the OPs to check the meter in question in the ME laboratory.   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. 

 

10.           In view of our above discussions and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.1,77,033/-raised vide bill dated 22.09.2017 on account of sundry charges.   The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and litigation expenses.         

 

11.           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.

                April 6, 2018.

                                                        (Sarita Garg)

                                                    Presiding Member

 

 

                                                       

                                                    (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                              Member