Punjab

Sangrur

CC/10/2018

Rattan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.S.S.Ratol

05 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

 

                                                Complaint No.  10

                                                Instituted on:    05.01.2018

                                                Decided on:       05.06.2018

 

Rattan Singh Mehal son of Shri Fakir Singh, R/O Street No.6, Kishanura, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     Assistant Engineer (SDO), City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Supply Corporation Ltd. Sangrur, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Rattan Singh Mehal,  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 S43GT430353P from the Ops and has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the OPs. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill for the month of September, 2016 for Rs.47,200/- on account of alleged consumption of 6033 units, which the complainant never consumed, as such, the complainant approached the Ops for withdrawal of the demand, but the Ops forced the complainant to deposit Rs.10,000/-, which was deposited accordingly under protest to avoid the disconnection of the electricity connection.  Further case of the complainant is that the meter is defective one and has jumped the reading consumption. It is further averred that there is no fault of the complainant and the demand raised by the Ops is said to be wrong and illegal. 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.47,200/- raised through the bill for the month of September, 2016 and further to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- so deposited with the Ops 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 no come to the Forum with clean hands, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and that the complaint is false and frivolous one which should be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops and his sanctioned load is 10.580 KW and issuance of the bill for Rs.47,200/- to the complainant is admitted.  It is stated that the complainant approached the OPs and requested to deposit the bill on average basis as such he deposited Rs.10,000/- as a part payment. It is stated further that the complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter and as such the meter was replaced vide MCO dated 9.9.2016 and during checking it was found that the actual reading was 31061 instead of 33353, as such the same was corrected. However, it is stated that the demand is quite legal and valid, hence has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-33 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.

 

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 bill dated 31.8.2016 for Rs.46,980/- wherein the consumption has been shown to be 6033 units, which is said to be excessive one as the complainant never used the electricity to such an extent. Further a bare perusal of the written reply shows that the meter reader recorded 33353 units instead of actual reading which was 31061 meaning thereby the reader recorded 2292 units more than the actual consumption, which fact is itself admitted by the OPs in their written version.  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 or checked in his presence according to the regulations of the OPs.   Further it is worth mentioning here that the OPs have already provided a credit of Rs.9423/- to the complainant vide bill dated 1.10.2016 whereby the amount of the bill has been reduced to Rs.21850/- from Rs.31269/- by giving a credit of Rs.9423/- to the complainant. It is further worth mentioning here that the OPs removed the meter of the complainant vide MCO dated 9.9.2016, whereas the meter in question was sent for checking to the ME laboratory vide store challan dated 13.11.2017 i.e. after a  period of more than fourteen months of the removal of the meter.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the meter in question was not sent to the laboratory immediately after its removal as per the rules and why the same was kept with the OPs for such a  long time. 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.46,980/- raise vide bill dated 31.8.2016.    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 bill dated 31.8.2016 raising a demand of Rs.46,980/-, Ex.OP2. 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.

                June 5, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member