BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.187 of 2014

Date of Instt. 5.6.2014

Date of Decision :11.12.2014

Ravinder Ghai son of Inder Sain Ghai, Ghai Biscuits, Model House, Jalandhar, Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, (Earlier Known As Punjab State Electricity Board/PSEB), The Mall, Patiala, Punjab through its Chairman.

2. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, (Earlier Known As Punjab State Electricity Board/PSEB), Commercial Unit-II, Model Town, Jalandhar, Punjab.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Atul Malhotra 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 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant had been allotted an electricity connection bearing account No.J72GC410316Y alongiwth a meter No.10545003. Complainant is using and consuming the said electric connection for self use and for self employment for earning livelihood for self and for his family with assistance of his family members. As such the complainant is a consumer of goods and services provided by opposite parties. The complainant is not involved in any huge commercial activity. Many times opposite parties and their officials have tried to impose illegal and arbitrary charges on complainant and his sister concerns i.e Ghai Bakery etc but have failed to justify or recover the said illegal and arbitrary charges. After complainant, Ghai Bakery and others approached this forum as well as civil courts, the said charges were set aside by the courts of Jalandhar. Due to this reason opposite parties and their officials have been keeping grudge against complainant and the said relative firms of complainant i.e M/s Ghai Bakery. Moreover one case titled as Adarsh Ghai Vs. PSPCL is still pending before this forum and in this case it has been proved that opposite parties have failed to account for payments deposited by the consumer and that opposite parties are acting malafidely and illegally. A checking was conducted by the officials of opposite parties at the premises of complainant on 14.5.2014 and everything was found to be all right particularly all three phases of the said meter were blinking and working properly. But the officials of opposite parties malafidely mentioned that the inner wires of the said meter were connected wrongly due to which the said meter was running slow by 15%. Rakesh Ghai, representative of complainant objected to the said noting and report dated 14.5.2014 of opposite parties since complainant or his representative were never taken into confidence nor were shown any data nor any comparison of two meters as alleged in the said report. The said representative of complainant was forced to sign on the said checking report after whole of the proceedings were completed by officials of opposite parties unilaterally in the absence of complainant and his representatives. As such the said representative of complainant namely Rakesh Ghai received the copy of the said checking report under protest because the said meter of the complainant was running and working all right and was giving correct readings and correct consumption. Officials of opposite parties malafidely and illegally prepared the said checking report in utter disregard to their own rules and regulations particularly electricity supply regulation No.68,70,70.5.2, 70.8 and 74 so as to pressurize complainant for filing other litigations against opposite parties. Further due to act and conduct of employees of opposite parties, they have destroyed best evidence intentionally and arbitrarily. Thereafter opposite parties illegally, arbitrarily, without giving any details and without issuing any supplementary bill, slapped Rs.242250/- as additional charges and issued a demand letter vide memo No.693 dated 27.5.2014. The said demand letter also does not disclose from which date opposite parties are demanding charges and from which date account has been overhauled. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for setting aside demand of Rs.2,42,250/- raised in demand letter/memo No.693 dated 27.5.2014. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objection that complainant has obtained the connection for commercial purpose and not for self employment and self use etc. They further pleaded that the checking of the premises and the electric connection of the complainant was conducted by the Enforcement Wing of the opposite parties on 14.5.2014. It is wrong that everything was found to be all right. It is wrong that all three phases of the said meter were blinking and working properly. The meter was checked by the enforcement staff of the opposite parties, in the presence of the complainant as required under the law and as per the results of the checking the report was prepared at the spot in the presence of the complainant and the meter was found working slow to the extent of 15%. On further checking of the meter after breaking the seals wires of the meter were wrongly fixed. The wires of the meter were correctly fixed and the results were correct. The DDL of the meter was done earlier which was not correct and after correcting the wires the DDL was done and the results were correct. The copy of the report was prepared at the spot as per the checking results in the presence of the complainant and the complainant put his signatures on the same after admitting its contents to be correct and the copy of the same was supplied to the complainant at the spot. It is wrong that the said meter was working properly. It is also wrong that the officers of the opposite parties, malafidely mentioned that the inner wires of the said meter were connected wrongly. The meter was running slow and the report was prepared correctly at the spot as per the results. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA & Ex.CB along with copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C15 and closed his evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.OP1/A and Ex.OP2/A and closed evidence.

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

6. It is in the affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant that he is using and consuming the said electric connection for self use and for self employment for earning livelihood for self and for his family with assistance of his family members. We have no reason to disbelieve this version of the complainant. So complainant is a consumer as he has obtained the electricity connection to earn livelihood by way of self employment. Ex.C-1 is checking report. The checking was conducted by enforcement wing of the power corporation. So we do not have any reason to disbelieve the checking report. According to the checking report the wires were wrongly connected with the terminal plate and on checking on the spot with the help of ERS meter and meter was found to be running slow by 15%. Thereafter the opposite parties have issued the demand notice dated 27.5.2014 for Rs.2,42,250/- Ex.C-2. The opposite parties have charged the differences of consumption by 15% from the date of installation of the meter. Counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite parties can not issue the demand notice beyond the period exceeding six months as per instructions issued by the Regulatory Authority. He further contended that the defective meter should have been removed and sent to the ME Lab for checking or refer to the Electrical Inspector for checking but this procedure was not adopted. He further contended that it is duty of the power corporation to install a correct meter. We have carefully considered the above contentions. Regulation 21.4 issued by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification dated 29.6.2007 provides as under:-

"21.4 Defective Meters

(a) The licensee will have the right to test any meter and related apparatus installed at a consumer's premises if there is a reasonable doubt about its accuracy and the consumer will provide the licensee all necessary assistance in conducting the test. The consumer will have the right to be present during such testing.

(b)(i) A consumer may request the licensee to test the meter/metering equipment installed in his premises, if he doubts its accuracy. The licensee will undertake such site testing within seven days on payment of fee as specified in the Schedule of General Charges approved by the commission.

(ii) If after testing, the meter is found to be defective then the fee deposited in accordance with Regulation 21.4(b)(i) will be refunded by adjustment in the electricity bills for the immediately succeeding months. In case the meter is found to be correct then such fee will be forfeited by the licensee.

(c) In case a consumer is not satisfied with the site testing of the meter installed in his premises or the meter can not be tested by the licensee at site then the meter will be removed and packed for testing in the laboratory of the licensee and another duly tested meter will be installed at the premises of such a consumer. In the event the licensee or the consumer apprehends tampering of meter and/or its seals then the packing containing the meter will be jointly sealed by the licensee and the consumer. The seals will be broken and testing undertaken in the laboratory of the licensee in the presence of the consumer".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7. So from the perusal of this regulation it is evident that meter can be tested at the site-as site testing is mentioned in this regulation. Further Regulation 21.4(g) relating to overhauling of consumer accounts lays down as under:-

" (g) Overhauling of consumer accounts.

(i) If a meter on testing is found to be beyond the limits of accuracy as prescribed in the regulations notified by the Central Electricity Authority under section 55 of the Act, the electricity charges for all categories of consumers will be computed in accordance with the said test results for a period of six months immediately preceding, the:-

(a) date of test in case the meter has been tested at site to the satisfaction of the consumer; or

(b) date of defective meter is removed for testing in the laboratory of the licensee where such testing is undertaken at the instance of the licensee; or

(c) date of receipt of request from the consumer for testing a meter in the laboratory of the licensee".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

8. So from the above regulation issued by Regulatory Authority it is evident that the accounts of the consumer in case of defective meter can be overhauled for a period of six months only. So any instructions or regulations contained in old sales regulation to the contrary are not applicable in view of the above specific regulation framed by Regulatory Commission.

9. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and impugned demand of Rs.2,42,250/- is set aside. However the opposite parties are directed to charge the complainant for six months immediately proceeding the date of site testing of the meter in accordance with above said checking report. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

11.12.2014 Member President