Punjab

Sangrur

CC/267/2018

Ramesh Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.R.K.Singla

14 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

 

                                                Complaint No.  267

                                                Instituted on:    12.06.2018

                                                Decided on:       14.09.2018

 

Ramesh Goyal @ Ramesh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Naurata Ram Goyal, resident of B-II/314, Padhian Street, Dhuri Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division City, Sangrur.

2.     Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall, Patiala through its CMD.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri R.K.Singla, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

 

1.             Shri Ramesh Goyal,  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 CH-34/0572 from the Ops at his house and has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the OPs and the average consumption of the said connection is about 400-450 units per billing cycle.  The complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 26.12.2017. It is further averred that though the bill was issued for Rs.2350/-, however the consumption recorded by the meter was shown as 1632 units , which is said to be highly excessive, as the complainant never used the load to such an extent.  Further the complainant was surprised to receive the next bill dated 24.2.2018 for Rs.27,560/- and the bill was charged for the consumption of 3599 units taking the initial reading as 12767 units and final reading as 16366 units, which is again said to be highly excessive, as such, the complainant requested the OPs to change the electricity meter and challenged the accuracy of the meter vide application dated 5.3.2018 and also deposited Rs.120/- as meter challenge fee vide receipt dated 6.3.2018 and it was told by the Ops that the meter would be checked in the ME laboratory in the presence of the complainant.  It is further stated that the meter in question was changed in the absence of the complainant and the same was neither packed nor sealed.  Thereafter the complainant received the next bill dated 30.4.2018 for Rs.33,820/- vide which the consumption is shown to be 938 units , as such the complainant approached the Ops, who corrected the bill and got deposited an amount of Rs.3300/- vide receipt dated 15.5.2018. Thereafter the complainant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.31,689/- within seven days, failing which to face disconnection of the electricity connection. The complainant has alleged this demand is wrong and illegal and without any basis.   Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.31689/- raised vide letter number 2005 dated 5.6.2018 and further to refund the same along with interest 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 complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complaint involves complicated questions of law and fact and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On merits, it is stated that the bill in question was issued on the basis of actual consumption of electricity. It is admitted that the complainant has challenged the accuracy of the meter being higher consumption of electricity, so the bill was issued for only Rs.2350/-.  It is stated that after receipt of the application, the meter was changed and removed by sealing and packing the meter in the box according to the rules and regulations.  Thereafter the meter was checked in the ME laboratory and found that the meter is OK.  The demand is said to be genuine one. Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective 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 between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining the electricity connection in question. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the letter number 2005 dated 5.6.2018, whereby the Ops have raised a demand of Rs.31,689/-, Ex.C-9 and its perusal clearly reveals that the Ops raised the said demand saying that the challenged meter was checked in the ME laboratory and found that the same is quite OK and as such the Ops directed the complainant to deposit the due amount of Rs.31,689/- within seven days, failing which to face the disconnection of the electricity connection.  It is worth mentioning here that the Ops have raised the demand of Rs.31689/- on the basis of the meter checked in the ME laboratory, but the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the demand raised by the Ops is without any basis, as the meter in question was never checked in his presence as per the rules and regulations of the Ops.   There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the excess consumption was recorded by the meter reader while recording the actual consumption of the electricity. Further the complainant has produced on record the copy of request whereby he challenged the accuracy of the meter, but the case of the complainant is that the meter in question was never removed and checked in the ME laboratory in his presence according to the regulations of the OPs.     Though it is the case of the OPs that the meter in question was checked in the ME laboratory, but the complainant was not called for at the time of checking.  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.31,689/-.    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.  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.

 

6.             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.31689/- as well as letter number 2005 dated 5.6.2018. 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  litigation expenses.         

 

7.             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.

                September 14, 2018.

 

 

                                                        (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Presiding Member

 

 

                                                             

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member