BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.269 of 2014

Date of Instt. 12.08.2014

Date of Decision :19.03.2015

Shiv Mandir (Regd.), Village Nagar, Tehsil Phillaur District Jalandhar through its Cashier.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2. The Assistance Executive Engineer, Sub Division Phillaur, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Rakesh Gupta Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Chandandeep Singh Adv., counsel for OPs.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant is a consumer of electricity vide electric connection No.PS67/268 installed in the religious temple/mandir, at Village Nagar, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, having a load of 7KW (DS). The present complaint is being filed through cashier Pardeep Kumar, who has been authorized to file the same, vide authority letter/resolution dated 5.8.2014. The connection of the complainant is regularly checked by the officers of the power corporation time to time at least once in every two months while taking the reading of consumption for issuance of energy bills and no defect has been pointed out either in the connection or in the meter. The bills issued by the opposite parties also show the status of the meter as "O" which means "OK Meter Theek Hai". Suddenly on 16.5.2014, the supply of the complainant was disconnected. When the complainant asked the reason for disconnection of supply, from the person who came to disconnect the supply, the official could not furnish any reason but asked the complainant to see the SDO/AEE/ opposite party No.2. The complainant then called the office of opposite party No.2 to know the reasons for disconnection of supply, where he was handed over one letter No.1066 dated 16.5.2014, wherein the demand of Rs.51127/- was raised by the opposite parties on the averments of defective meter. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for setting aside the demand of Rs.51127/- raised vide bill dated 31.7.2014, memo No.1066 dated 16.5.2014 in respect of electric connection. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that meter No.1118552 of the electric connection No.PS67/268 was removed vide MCO No.135/64542 dated 22.2.2013. The removed meter was packed and sealed in the presence of the consumer. The consumer signed the Meter Change Order(MCO) as a token of his presence and everything was done lawfully. The meter was sent to the ME Lab wherein it was removed from sealed cardboard box and then thoroughly checked/inspected. On checking in ME Lab, meter was found burnt. Display/reading was not visible, thus the meter was defective. Accordingly, the account of the consumer was overhauled from the period 1/12 to 5/13, as on audit of the electricity account of the complainant it transpired that meter was not recording correct consumption since 1/2012 by taking consumption of the corresponding month of the previous year. The complainant got served the memo No.1066 dated 16.5.2014 for Rs.511127/-, as charges for the period, the meter remained defective. The consumer made a representation to Addl.S.E.Goraya who vide order dated 11.7.2014 upheld the amount as recoverable. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and evidence of complainant closed by order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OA alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O3 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and heard learned counsels for the parties.

6. The complainant has challenged the demand of Rs.51127/- raised by the opposite parties vide bill dated 31.7.2014, memo No.1066 dated 16.5.2014 in respect of its electrical connection. The version of the opposite parties is that the meter was removed vide MCO dated 22.2.2013 and it was packed and sealed in the presence of the consumer and was sent to ME Lab, on checking in ME Lab, meter was found burnt and its display/reading was not visible and thus the meter was defective and accordingly the account of the complainant/ consumer was overhauled from the period 1/12 to 5/13. The opposite parties can not overhaul the account of the consumer for more than six months if the meter is defective as per its own rules and regulations. In this case the account of the complainant has been overhauled from 1/12 to 5/13 i.e for 17 months. It is duty of the power corporation to install the correct meter. Overhauling the account of the complainant beyond six months on the ground that meter was defective is not permissible as per rule and regulations of the power corporation. Counsel for the complainant also contended that the opposite parties can not overhaul the account beyond the period of six months. Counsel for the opposite parties could not show us any rule or regulation under which the power corporation was competent to overhaul the account of the complainant beyond a period of six months in case of defective meter.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and the demand of Rs.51127/- raised vide bill dated 31.7.2014, memo No.1066 dated 16.5.2014 in respect of electrical connection of the complainant is set-aside and opposite parties are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant for the last six months taking average consumption of the corresponding period of the previous year. The amount already deposited by the complainant in pursuance to order dated 12.8.2014 passed by this Forum shall be adjusted against the such demand on average basis of six months and excess, if any, shall be refunded or adjusted in future bill of the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost or compensation. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

19.03.2015 Member Member President