BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.63  of 2023

      Date of Instt. 28.02.2023

      Date of Decision: 16.10.2023

Khazan Singh aged about 63 years s/o Sh. Balwant Singh r/o House No.53, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall, Patiala through         its Chairman/Managing Director.

2.       The Assistant Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State    Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Lambra, Distt. Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Chandandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant was actual and lawful consumer of electricity vide electricity connection No.KK17/3123 installed at 94, Mann Nagar, Jalandhar. The said property has been sold by the complainant to Kamal Kumar Chauhar and Anu Bhutani vide sale deed No.2022-23/187/9545 023 Sub F dated 17.02.2023 Sub Registrar, Jalandhar. The OPs have installed electronic meter in said residential property of complainant. The said meter not only records the electricity consumption but also reflects various other features like reading recorded by meter each hour, consumption on each phase etc. The said information is stored in the memory of the meter and can be downloaded whenever required to determine the reading/working of the meter. The complainant received the bill dated Nil for the period 20.08.2014 to 10.02.2023 for Rs.5,53.921/- on average basis. On receipt of the bill, the complainant called upon the officials of OP No.2 and asked the reason for claiming said inflated amount in the bill but no plausible explanation was given to complainant. However, on protest by complainant, the OP No.2 informed the complainant that meter of complainant was burnt since beginning and for the reason of burnt meter, his account could not uploaded in the software of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and as such bill was not issued to him and now consolidated bill for the entire period (20.08.2014 to 10.02.2023) during which the burnt meter remained at site, for Rs.5,53,921/- has been issued. The OPs failed to discharge their statutory obligation of removing the burnt meter, installing the correct meter and issuing the bills despite protracted follow-ups, persuasion, inquiries and protestations of complainant. There was no reason or occasion for OPs for keeping the burnt meter at site and not sending the consumption bills. The OPs on account of their own delay and latches are making the complainant to suffer by issuing exaggerated consolidated bills for 8 years 5 months 23 days on average basis. The complainant humble seeks the redressal of his grievance with regard to deliberate failure of OPs to perform the legal obligation of removing burnt meter and not sending periodical bill. The said illegal and unlawful acts of the OPs have caused a lot of mental tension, agony and harassment to 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 demand of Rs.5,53,921/- on average basis against bill dated NIL for the period 20.08.2014 to 10.02.2023 and waived off by the Commission and further OPs be restrained from disconnecting the electric connection No.KK17/3123 and further the amount, which the complainant may have to deposit to save the connection from disconnecting is liable to be refunded to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. It is further averred that the complainant is estopped by his own Act, Conduct, Admissions and Omissions from filing the present complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. It is further averred that the complaint is incomplete and does not mention the correct and proper facts and history of the case. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant against OP. This is nothing but misuse of the process of law. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is consumer of electricity connection as they installed the electronic meter and it is also admitted that the meter was burnt, 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 not filed by the complainant.

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 complainant has proved on record by way of filing the copy of sale deed that he is owner of the house and is bonafide resident. He has sold the property to Kamal Kumar and Anu Bhutani vide sale deed Ex.C-4. It is not disputed that the electricity connection No.KK17/3123 was installed in the property No.94, Mann Nagar, Jalandhar. The complainant has challenged the bill Ex.C5 for the period 20.08.2014 to 10.02.2023 for Rs.5,53,921/- on average basis. It has been alleged by the complainant that during this period, the meter remained burnt, but the same was never replaced by the OPs and they issued a bill Ex.C-5 wrongly and illegally.

7.                The OP on the other hand has alleged that the meter installed in the premises was an electronic meter and as per the ME Lab report, meter reading could not be obtained in ME Lab as meter was burnt and meter failed to power-up with three phase supply in ME Lab. The complainant consumed the electricity and the bill has rightly been issued on the average basis.

8.                The copy of the bill Ex.C-5 shows that the date of old reading has been shown as 20.08.2014 and the date of new reading has been shown as 10.02.2023 i.e. this bill is for 9 years on average basis. It has been admitted by the OPs that the meter was burnt. As per Ex.OP-2, on 10.02.2023 during routine checking, the display of the meter of account No.KK17/3123 of the House No.94 was found burnt. Despite the display burnt, the supply of electricity was going on. It has been mentioned in this report that the meter reader has nowhere mentioned regarding the present account number and about any bill of the present electricity meter. Ex.OP-5 is contradictory to Ex.OP-2. As per Ex.OP-5, the OPs have written a letter to the complainant that on the oral complaint of the complainant that he is not getting the bills, the connection of the complainant was checked, whereas in Ex.OP-2, it has been mentioned that the meter of the complainant was checked during routine checking. There is no reference of any complaint of the complainant regarding not getting the electricity bills. Even if for the sake of argument, it is assumed that there was an oral complaint of the complainant, even then as per the instructions in the Supply Code, the meter is to be replaced within 10 working days of the receiving of the complaint. The meter reader is duty bound to check the meter and send the bill as per the units consumed by the consumer. For 9 years, the OP has not issued any bill nor any meter reader reported about the burnt meter of the complainant. This is clear cut negligence on the part of the OPs. In the present case, the meter remained defective for about 9 years, but no action was ever taken by the OP nor instructions mentioned in the Supply Code were ever followed by the OP.

9.                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 is clear cut violation of the provisions of Supply Code.

                   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.

10.              Further, as per 'Electricity Supply Code' and 'Related Matters Regulations 2007', wherein Clause 21.5.2 itself gave a direction to the employee of the Punjab State Corporation that “in case of dead or stop meter the accounts of the consumer shall be overhauled for the period meter remained defective/dead stop, subject to maximum period of six months”, but in this case, the meter was defective and despite that the impugned bill was issued of the above said period of nine years, which is again against the regulations 2007 and in support of this observation, we like to made reliance upon a pronouncement of our Hon'ble State Commission, cited in 2003(1) C. P. C. 310, titled as “Shingara Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Another”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

                   “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 15 & 12,           Electricity bill, amount of electricity bill was demanded from 1997         to 1999 on average basis, It is now settled law that maximum     period for which bill can be raised in respect of a defective meter          under Electricity Act is 6 months and no more, Order of District        Forum quashed, Case remanded for fresh decision keeping into        view above mentioned observations.”

11.              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 Ex.C-5 for the period 20.08.2014 to 10.02.2023 is hereby set-aside and OPs are restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant except in due course of law. Further, the amount which the complainant had deposited to save the connection from disconnecting be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in future bill. Further, OPs are directed to raise fresh bill as per the provisions of Electricity Act and following the procedure as per Supply Code. 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.

12.              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          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

16.10.2023         Member                          Member           President