Punjab

Sangrur

CC/385/2017

Jagjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Smt.Gurjit Kaur

12 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  385

                                                Instituted on:    03.08.2017

                                                Decided on:       12.12.2017

 

Jagjit Singh aged about 63 years son of Sh. Labh Singh, resident of Village Burthla Mander, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Division Office, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

3.     Asstt. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division Office Lasoi, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Ms.Gurjit Kaur, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Jagjit 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 obtained one domestic electricity connection bearing account number L31B1460584M and has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the OPs. It is further averred that the electricity meter was installed in locked box on the pole and away from the house.  The complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 12.7.2017 for Rs.20,580/-, wherein an amount of Rs.20038/- has been demanded on account of sundry charges.  The complainant visited the OP number 3 and requested for withdrawal of the disputed demand of Rs.20,038/-, but the OP number 3 told the complainant that the meter of the complainant was earlier changed vide MCO number 155/53042 dated 28.12.2015 and the said meter was checked in the ME Laboratory and its reading was 17690 and there was unbilled reading of 2700 units and has further contended that earlier his reading was only from 43 to 308 units for the period from 21.1.2015 to 12.7.2017, but the OPs have wrongly mentioned the reading as 17690 and demanded the amount for consumption of 2700 units, which the complainant never consumed.  Further it is mentioned in the complaint that the complainant was never called for in the ME laboratory at the time of checking of the meter in question.  As such, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service eon the part of the OPs and has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the said demand of Rs.20,580/- raised vide bill dated 12.7.2017 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the 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 this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and that the Ops are not liable for any deficiency in service.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs.  It is averred further that the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO dated 22.2.2015 and at that time its reading was 17690 units and the same is very much clear from the MCO and thereafter the meter in question was sent to the ME laboratory vide challan number 41 dated 14.3.2016 and during checking the old reading was found to be 17690 units and after receiving the ME laboratory report, the account of the complainant was overhauled vide half margin report dated 27.10.2016 and the demand is said to has been rightly 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-19 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-4 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, the case of the complainant is that he is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 12.07.2017 for Rs.20,580/- in which an amount of Rs.20,038/- 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.20,038/- added as sundry charges on the basis of unbilled reading which is wrong and without any basis, as no MCO was effected in his presence.  If there was a reading of 17690 units at the time of removal of the meter then the same must have been brought in the knowledge of the complainant. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the meter in question was neither checked immediately after removal nor the complainant was ever intimated about the same, as such it is contended that the demand is without any basis.  On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the reading at the time of removal of the meter was 17690  and the same was also confirmed by the ME laboratory when the meter was checked in the ME laboratory sent for checking.  We have very carefully perused the meter change order dated 28.2.2015 Ex.OP-3, but it no where contains the signature of the complainant or its authorised agent.  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 28.02.2015, Ex.OP-3, 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.20038/- for consumption of 2700 units. 

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the copies of the electricity bills, which show that the sanctioned load of the complainant is 1.64 KW.  The Ops have also produced on record the copy of meter change order Ex.OP-3, 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.

 

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 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.

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.20,038/-raised vide bill dated 12.07.2017.  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.         

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.

                December 12, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member