BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.371 of 2014

Date of Instt. 22.10.2014

Date of Decision :27.04.2015

Sonu Kukreja wife of Gautam Kukreja R/o 428, Golden Avenue Phase-2, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2. Sub Divisional Officer Cantt, Sub Division NO.1, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Jalandhar Cantt.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

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

Sh.KL Dua Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is the holder of electrical connection under account No.J65GT1310033N issued by the opposite parties No.1 & 2. Hence, complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties No.1 & 2. The above said connection was installed in the premises of the complainant in the month of June-July 2013 and a load of 19.5 KW is sanctioned. After the installation of the electric meter in the premises complainant is regularly making the payments of all the bills raised by the opposite parties as per consumption and there was no complaint about the working of the meter. Copies of the electric bills are attached and the summary of the consumption is as under:-

2. In the month of March 2014 meter reader has taken the meter reading which is 1595 and the previous reading was 1398 and after checking the meter he has intimated the complainant that meter is defective and complaint be made to the department for the change in the meter, however he has handed over the bill to the complainant for a sum of Rs.12990/-. Thereafter complainant has made a complaint to the department for the change of the meter and has also requested the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to rectify the bill and the opposite parties rectify the bill to Rs.5940/- after making the endorsement on the same, accordingly the same was deposited by the complainant. Thereafter every month similar problem was faced by the complainant at the hands of the opposite parties as every month inflated bill was raised and the complainant has to get it rectify the same every time. In the month of the October 2014 opposite parties has added an amount of Rs.64267/- in the bill of the complainant on account arrears of the current year but on verification about the arrears no satisfactory reply was given by opposite parties nor they rectify the bill as it was done on earlier occasion and asked the complainant to deposit the entire bill. The complainant is regularly paying all the bills issued by the opposite parties and there was no complaint about the working of the meter till for the first time it was intimated to the complainant by the meter reader in the month of March 2013(March 2014). The demand of Rs.64267/- raised by the opposite parties is illegal and unjustified and is not tenable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for seting aside the demand of Rs.64267/- raised by opposite parties vide bill dated 3.10.2014 on account of arrears and directing the opposite parties to accept the bill on the basis of actual consumption.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the meter of the complainant was defective and report to this effect was made by the meter reader and also made by the complainant on the asking of the meter reader and her meter was removed, so the charges are legal. The objection was raised by the audit party and as per the audit objection raised by the audit party and as per the amount ordered to be recovered by the audit party, the amount in question was raised from the complainant which is legal and valid charges and the complainant is legally bound to pay the same. They admitted it to be correct that in the month of March 2014, meter reader has taken the meter reading which was 1595 and the previous reading was 1398 and after checking the meter, he has intimated the complainant that meter is defective and complaint be made to the department for the change of the meter. It is matter of record that he was handed over the bill for Rs.12990/-. Thereafter the complainant has made a complaint to the opposite parties/department for the change of the meter. It is submitted that the meter was reported as 'D' code in 3/14 and 4/14 and as 'C' code in 5/14. The meter was ordered to be changed as per the report of the meter reader and as per the complaint made by the complainant. The complainant also requested to check the bill as the same is very much excessive. The bill was checked and the same was modified and the consumer was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.5940/-. Similarly she used to receive the bills and the same used to be modified. The account of the consumer was checked by the internal audit of the Cantt Division of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The audit party has raised the objection on receiving the half margin bill from the complainant. The internal audit party observed that the meter of the consumer has been reported to be of 'D' code in 3/14 and 4/14 and 'C' code 5/14. The meter change advise has not been placed in the ledger, neither the particulars of the MCO has been recorded nor the MCO has been produced. On the checking of the consumption data of the consumer, the meter of the consumer was not correct i.e 'Kharab' from the date of connection i.e 8/13. The consumption of the consumer/complainant is very low as per the connected load. The account of the complainant /consumer was required to be overhauled as per the rule 21.4(g) of the supply code, but the same has not been done by the office. Now the same is being overhauled/revised by the audit party from 8/13 to 2/14 on average basis on LDHF formula. On the basis of the said letter, the amount was raised from the consumer vide letter No.1517 dated 24.9.2014 and as the same was not paid, so the same was included in the bill dated 3.10.2014. The demand raised is correct and as per the audit report. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and closed evidence

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed evidence.

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

7. The complainant has challenged the demand of Rs.64267/- on account of arrears shown in bill dated 3.10.2014 Ex.C7. It is not disputed that meter reader reported in March 2014 that meter was defective. The meter was reported as 'D' code i.e defective in 3/14 and 4/14 and as 'C' code in 5/14. The meter was changed. The opposite parties have raised the impugned demand on the basis of audit report Ex.OP2. According to the internal audit report, the meter was defective right from the start i.e 8/13 as the consumption shown by the meter was very less as compared to the connected load. From the perusal of the internal audit report Ex.OP2 it is evident that due to above said fact the account of the complainant was overhauled from 8/13 to 2/14 and impugned demand of Rs.64267/- was raised on its basis. So the internal auditors came to the conclusion that meter was defective right from the start as the consumption shown or recorded by the meter was very less as compared to the connected load. The meter was never got checked from any laboratory to come to the conclusion that it was defective. The meter was reported to be defective by the meter reader for the first time in March 2014. The impugned demand is only from 8/13 to February 2014. So there is no dispute regarding the consumption of March 2014 or afterwards. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has failed to show us any rule or regulation of the power corporation which authorizes the power corporation to demand additional charges merely on the ground that consumption of electricity was low as compared to the connected load. There are no allegations of the opposite parties that the complainant has tampered with the meter in any manner. The meter was never sent to any laboratory to determine if it was running slow and recording less consumption. In absence of any report of the laboratory regarding any defect in the meter during the period in question, raising of impugned demand simply on the ground that the consumption during the period in question was low as compared to the connected load, is not justified. There can be various reasons for less consumption during the period in question. In the above circumstances, impugned demand is not legally sustainable.

8. Consequently, the present complaint is accepted and impugned demand of Rs.64267/- raised by opposite parties vide bill dated 3.10.2014 is set aside. The amount deposited by the complainant out to the impugned demand shall be either refunded to her or adjusted in future bill. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as costs or compensation. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

27.04.2015 Member Member President