Punjab

Sangrur

CC/477/2017

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Rohit Jain

07 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  477

                                                Instituted on:    18.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       07.12.2017

 

Rakesh Kumar son of Vas Dev son of Lala Bhagwan Dass, resident of Mohala Khojian Wala, Near Shanidev Mandir, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     AEE, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division-2, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

1.             Shri Rakesh Kumar, 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 originally one Pritam Chand obtained one electric connection bearing account number L33SW230041A with  a sanctioned load of 0.320 KW, who sold the above said premises where the connection was obtained to one Shri Ramesh Kumar and further Ramesh Kumar sold the house to the complainant, as such the complainant is using the connection and paying the electricity bills to the OPs.  The grievance of the complainant is that the electricity meter installed in his premises was running fast,  as such the complainant moved an application in January 2017 to the OPs and the Ops got deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- and replaced the old meter  with a new meter.  Further the complainant received the bill dated 24.4.2017 for Rs.75,360/- wherein an amount of Rs.74,009/- has been demanded on average of previous year, as such the complainant immediately approached the OP number 2 to withdraw the above said demand of Rs.74,009/-, but nothing happened.  Thereafter the complainant received further bill dated 21.6.2017 for Rs.79,390/-, bill dated 26.8.2017 for Rs.83,670/- on average basis, which are said to be wrong and without any basis.  Further grievance of the complainant is that the meter in question was never checked in the ME laboratory at any time nor any notice was given to the complainant.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the disputed demand of Rs.73,528/- demanded in the bill on account of average of previous year and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs, that the complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing true facts, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint is false and frivolous one.  On merits, it is stated that the connection is running in the name of one Pritam Singh, as such, the complainant is not a consumer.  Further it is stated that the complainant has not moved any application for changing of meter rather the meter of Shri Pritam Chand was ‘D’ code (defective) then the ops replaced/changed the old meter with a new one and at the time of replacement, its reading was 12123 units, as such, it is stated that the bill dated 24.4.2017 was issued to the complainant for Rs.75,360 out of which an amount of Rs.74,009/- has been demanded on account of arrears of previous year and not average of previous year.  It is stated further that the complainant has himself is not depositing the electricity bills regularly. Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs. 

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 copies of bills, Ex.C-6 payment receipts and Ex.C-8 & Ex.C-9 copies of the sale deeds and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of ledger account, Ex.OP-2 copy of meter reading unit detail, Ex.OP-3 copy of MCO and Ex.OP-4 affidavit 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.             It is an admitted fact that the connection in question is in the name of one Pritam Chand, who sold the above said house to one Shri Ramesh Kumar and further Ramesh Kumar sold the above said house to the complainant as such, he has been using the connection in question and paying the bills regularly, as such, we feel that the complainant is a consumer as he has been using the connection and paying the bills and the complaint of the complainant is fully maintainable before this Forum.

 

6.             It is also not in dispute that the OPs have raised a demand of Rs.73,528/- in the bill dated 24.4.2017 as average of previous year, but the OPs have stated that the demand is on account of arrears of previous year. Further the complainant has submitted that OPs got deposited Rs.5000/- on account of change of the meter and installed new meter. But the Ops have contended that the meter was D code (Defective) and then the OPs replaced/changed old meter with the new One. The complainant could not bring any document on the record to show that they had deposited Rs.5000/- on account of change the meter.

                             

7.             We have also perused the copy of job order for device replacement (meter change order) Ex.OP-3 which was effected on 10.1.2017 bears the signature of the meter replacing authority only, but the column of signature of consumer has not been filled up, meaning thereby the complainant was not called at the time of replacement of the already installed old defective meter.

 

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, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to withdraw the disputed demand of Rs.73,528/- raised vide bill dated 24.04.2017. We further order the OPs to charge the electricity bills from the complainant on actual consumption basis from the date of change of meter  and charge for the consumption of six months corresponding to consumption of the previous year  prior to the change of meter . Further the Ops are directed to adjust the already deposited amount of Rs.25000/- by the complainant at the time of restoration of his electricity vide document i.e. payment receipt Ex.C-7 with them and also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

 

10.   This order of ours 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 7, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                 Member