Punjab

Sangrur

CC/176/2017

Waliti Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Vikram Manchanda

14 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    176

                                                Instituted on:      02.05.2017

                                                Decided on:       14.08.2017

 

Walaiti Ram aged 60 years son of Mangal Ram, resident of near ITI College, Village Beer-Ahmedabad, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through its M.D.

 2.    Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Operation Sub Urban Sub Division, Malerkotla District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Vikram Manchanda, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Walaiti Ram,  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 obtained one domestic electricity connection bearing account number L36B460214H and the electricity meter in question was installed outside the premises of the complainant. It is further averred that the last reading was recorded during May, 2017 and the status of the meter was OK.  The complainant is covered under BPL Scheme.  The grievance of the complainant is that he received wrong bill dated 29.10.2016 for Rs.10,715/- in which an amount of Rs.8580/- was demanded as arrears, as such the complainant approached the OPs to know about the charges and the Op told that the same have been added on average basis consumption of earlier months, as such the complainant deposited the bill in question.  Further case of the complainant is that he received another wrong bill number 521 dated 24.4.2017 for Rs.53,133/- and as such approached the OPs and further stated that nothing is due against the complainant and also shown previous receipts, but all in vain.  The Ops have wrongly demanded the said demand.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw/quash the bill dated 24.4.2017 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.    On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs by getting a domestic electricity connection in question with a sanctioned load of 0.72 KW under DS category and is also covered under the BPL category.  Further case of the OPs is that the complainant moved an application dated 25.4.2017 to the OPs and after receiving the same, the concerned official of the PSPCL immediately visited the spot and checked the running load of the complainant and found that there was running load of 2.25 KW and the sanctioned load was only 0.76 KW.  Thereafter notice number 928 dated 27.4.2017 was issued to the consumer for deposit of the amount of Rs.3240/- which was duly deposited by the complainant on 16.5.2017. It is stated further that the bill dated 29.10.2016 has rightly been issued to the complainant for Rs.10,715/- for consumption of 938 units.  Further case of the OPs is that actually on the key exception report of the meter reader, the meter of the complainant was burnt in the month of March, 2016 and due to the said reason, the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO number 47/53061 dated 21.3.2016 and after that the same was sent to the ME laboratory and found that the last consumption reading of the meter is 12226 units  and the consumer had paid upto 4354 units only, as such the complainant was charged for 7872 units and the demand raised is said to be legal one.  Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.   It is further stated that separate notice number 516 dated 17.3.2017 was also issued to the complainant for deposit of the consumption charges, but all in vain.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 copies of the bills and receipts 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.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact the connection in question is running in the name of the complainant, as such, he is a consumer of the OPs. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving a  bill number 521 dated 24.4.2017 for Rs.54,462/-, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4 and the amount has been raised on the basis of checking of the meter in the ME laboratory and on account of unbilled consumption of electricity.  We have perused the copy of the meter change order  dated 21.3.2016, a copy of which on record is as Ex.OP-6, but a bare perusal of it shows that the same has been signed neither by the complainant nor by any of  the official of the OPs nor the complainant is shown to has been called in the ME laboratory nor it is shown that the meter of the complainant has been checked in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative, which is a clear cut violation of the own instructions of the OPs.  Further it is worth mentioning here that the consumption so charged by the OPs to the tune of 7872 as mentioned in the reply of the OPs is not admissible, whereas the average consumption of the complainant was not so much high nor there is any mention of the reading on the MCO Ex.OP-6. There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why at the time of removal of the old meter the reading at that time was not mentioned by the official who removed the old and defective meter. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the amount has been charged rightly as the meter in question at the time of checking in the ME laboratory was found quite OK.  But, the stand of the learned counsel for the complainant is that though the electricity meter of the complainant was replaced by the OPs, but the same was never 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.54,462/-. 

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the copies of the electricity bills, which show that the sanctioned load of the complainant is 0.72 KW.  The Ops have not produced any copy of the MCO  showing that the signatures of the complainant or his representative were ever obtained at the time of effective the meter change order. Further the copy of the ME laboratory report, Ex.OP-4 nowhere shows that the complainant was called to come present in the ME laboratory at the time of checking of the meter in the ME laboratory.

 

7.             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 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/6.  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.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the bill dated 24.4.2017 demanding an amount of Rs.53,133 /- and raise a fresh bill by taking the average of  six months of the same period of previous year.  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 further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of  litigation expenses.         

9.             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.

                August 14, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member