BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.27  of 2019

      Date of Instt. 29.01.2019

      Date of Decision: 01.08.2023

Aabha Naagar D/o Shri Onkar Swarup Nagar, Chamber No.23-A, New Courts, Jalandhar Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2.       SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division        Partap Bagh, Jalandhar, Punjab.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj            (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Sh. Atul Malhotra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. S.K.S. Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OPs are providing electricity services for consideration to the general public throughout Punjab particularly at Jalandhar through its branch office/OP No.2. The complainant is a consumer of OP and has been allotted an electricity connection bearing Consumer No.173CK181439H and Contract Account No.3001754133, which is in the name of the Complainant under NRS Category at the chamber of the Complainant in District Courts, Jalandhar. Complainant is not involved in any commercial activity through the said electricity connection. The complainant is running the said electricity connection at her chamber for earning her livelihood for self and for family. Earlier an electricity meter bearing no.1210354 was installed at the premises of the Complainant for recording electricity consumption which was changed with meter no.445602 in the last months of 2017. Earlier the meter of Complainant bearing no.1210354 was defective but OPs failed to change the said meter of complainant as per rules. The complainant many times approached OP No.2 and other officials of OPs and demanded justification regarding the electricity bills showing Average charges and Defective code of meter but no justification was given to Complainant. OPs kept on sending illegal and arbitrary bills based upon average charges. On the persistent demands from Complainant, OPs changed the said old meter with new one in the last months of year 2017. But Complainant is having no information or knowledge about the fate of old meter, till date. The said old meter was neither packed nor sealed in the presence of Complainant or any of her representatives. Further the said old meter has not been checked or verified from any Laboratory till date. Now after changing the said old meter, the consumption of complainant has drastically decreased. The consumption data of electricity connection of Complainant through the new meter clearly shows that complainant had never been consuming the electricity to the magnitude as OPs have been sending on Average basis. The present consumption date clearly proves that OPs have been sending exorbitant and arbitrary electricity bills till 2017. The acts of the OPs are against the rules and regulations as well as terms and conditions laid down in The Electricity Act, The Electricity Supply Act, The Sales Regulations of PSEB. Conditions of Supply, Rules, Regulations and Circulars of the OPs in addition to being against the Rules of Natural Justice. The consumption data of electricity consumed by Complainant for the year 2018 proves that the Complainant never consumed electricity to the extent as shown in bills for the years 2016 and 2017. There is no doubt that the said old Meter No.1210354 of the Complainant was running too fast and was defective. The OPs have got no cause or reason or justification to demand the illegal charges for Rs.29240/- based upon illegal and arbitrary average charges from defective meter. Further, OPs cannot impose charges on Complainant without proper checking of the removed meter of Complainant from Chief Electrical Inspector, Patiala or ME lab in the presence of Complainant. Moreover, the officials of OPs had failed to seal the removed old meter of Complainant in the presence of Complainant. The OPs or their officials have neither got checked the said meter of Complainant nor verified the working of said old meter of Complainant by any means properly as per the law till present date. The malafide intentions of OPs are clear since OPs have failed to supply ME Lab Report & MCO to the Complainant till today. The Complainant has never ever consumed electricity to the order and amount as alleged by OPs in the said bills till 2017. Due to the above mentioned facts, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to quash the bill dated 23.11.2018 for amounting to Rs.29,240/- and to issue correct bill after deducting the charges already paid by the complainant based upon the present consumption date of 2018 and OPs be directed to refund the excess amount deposited by complainant and Further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and any other relief which this Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed just to harass the answering OP. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable in the present form. The complainant who herself is the senior lawyer and remained as Secretary of District Bar Association, Jalandhar, lingering on making the payment of the outstanding amount due towards her from the last so many years. Earlier also the applicant instead of making the payment of the outstanding amount filed the application under Section 22-C of the legal services Authorities Act, 1987 on 08.08.2017 and when the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat is going to dismiss her application she immediately withdraw the same. From the act and conduct of the applicant it is crystal clear that the applicant not wants to make the payment of outstanding amount, which is due towards her. The demand raised by the OP in the bills is legal and valid one and is as per the rules and regulations of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and the applicant is legally bound to pay the same. It is further averred that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against the answering OPs. Rather cause of action arisen to the OPs against the complainant for dragging the OPs again and again in the false and frivolous litigation and putting the state Exchequer in the heavy monetary loss. It is further averred that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and have suppressed the true and material facts from this Commission. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has been allotted an electric connection which falls under the NRS category installed in the chamber of the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The OP has alleged that the complainant is a senior lawyer and remained as Secretary of District Bar Association, Jalandhar. The meter is electric, which, was being used for commercial purposes, therefore, there present complaint is not maintainable and this Commission has no jurisdiction, but this contention of the OP is not tenable as it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2005(2) RCR 295, case titled as Chairman, M. P. Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Shiv Narayan and Anr. that ‘Electricity Act, 2003 Section 23 Legal profession is not a commercial activity - Running of office by an Advocate in a building cannot be termed as Commercial activity - Activity may be non-domestic, but it cannot be termed as Commercial activity-Electricity rates fixed for Commercial user cannot be charged - A professional activity must be an activity carried on by an individual by his personal skill and intelligence. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court running of a Chamber by the complainant  as alleged for her livelihood for self and for family cannot be termed as commercial activity. The complainant is resident of Jalandhar and is doing practice as an Advocate at Jalandhar, hence this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint is maintainable.

7.                The complainant has alleged that the meter bearing No.1210354 was defective and the meter was changed in the last months of 2017. Till then, the electricity bills showing average charges and defective code of meter were being sent. The complainant has proved on record the old bills showing the consumption till the meter was declared defective and the receipts of payment of the bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-26. Thereafter, the impugned bill was sent, which has been proved as Ex.C-27 and Ex.C-28. Perusal of Ex.C-28 shows that in this bill, the previous year arrears have been mentioned as Rs.20,420/- + ED Charges Rs.2956/-. The complainant has written letters to the OP on 19.10.2015 and 14.12.2015, vide letters Ex.C-29 and Ex.C-30 to inspect the electricity meter of account No.3001754133 and to charge as per the actual consumption instead of average load, but the grudge of the complainant was never resolved. The bill Ex.C28 shows that the period of the bill is from 24.09.2018 to 23.11.2018 and the reading previous and current has been mentioned 378 and 0 unit has been shown as a consumption, but the entire amount of previous year has been added in this bill. Perusal of the data of the meter of the complainant, filed by the complainant, for the assistance and perusal of the Commission shows that from the period 06.03.2015 till 24.11.2017, the meter remained defective. The status of the meter showing ‘O’ was on 13.10.2015 and 11.12.2015. Except these two readings, all the data shows that during this period, the meter remained defective and the same was not changed.

8.                 The OP in the written statement has alleged that the demand raised by the OP is legal and valid as per the regulations 21.5.2 D. The consumption has been assessed as per LDHF Formula as the meter was found defective and the same was not found appropriate and the same was changed. The OP has not produced on record the report of ME Lab to show the result of the checking of the meter. The meter was changed in the last months of 2017 as alleged by the complainant and the same has not been denied by the OP also. This clearly shows that the meter was changed after about two years of the application moved by the complainant for inspecting the meter and as per the data when the same was showing defective. The complainant has categorically alleged that when the meter was changed, the old meter was neither packed nor sealed in the presence of the complainant or any of her representative nor her signatures were obtained anywhere. In the written reply of these allegations, the OP has neither denied nor admitted this fact rather they have not stated anything regarding sending the meter to ME Lab. As per the instructions in the Supply Code, the meter is to be removed in the presence of the consumer and the same is also to be checked in the ME Lab in the presence of the consumer or his her representative or with the consent of the consumer, if any, only then the meter can be checked in the absence of the consumer, but there is nothing on the record to prove that the meter was removed and checked in the presence of the consumer i.e. complainant.

9.                As per the instructions in the Supply Code, 2014 the distribution licensee shall inspect and check correctness of a meter within seven working days of receipt of a complaint or report by its authorized official/officer/representative. If the meter is defective (i.e. it is struck up, running slow, fast or creeping), the distribution licensee shall replace the meter within ten working days of receiving the complaint or report by its authorized official. In the present case, the meter was not changed within stipulated time as it remained defective from 06.03.2015 to 24.11.2017 except on two dates i.e. 13.10.2015 and 11.12.2015, which is in violation of instructions in the supply code.

10.              It has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, cited in 1995(2) CPJ 70, titled as “Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Ashok Kumar”,  which is as under:-

                   “The meter of the respondent remained non functional for about two years and thereafter, it was replaced by the appellant.   The District Forum rightly noticed that the primal responsibility of     the correct metering of electric energy lies on the Board and its   equipment unless tampering or other malpractice is established. It      seems right in its view that the respondent cannot be held liable for   the fault of the meter, if any and it is for the appellant-Board to   either have checked the same or replaced if it was defective. The District Forum was right in holding that unless it is established that         the respondent had either tampered or consumed more electricity           than shown in the bills, he cannot be arbitrarily burdened with    additional charges.”

                   In the present case, as per the rules and instruction the defective meter is to be changed within 10 working days and it is the responsibility of the board, but these rules and instructions were not followed. Thus the complainant cannot be held liable as there are no allegations of any malpractice or tempering with the meter by the complainant.

11.              It has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in 2006(46) R.C.R. (Civil) 902, case titled as ‘Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Subhash Sood’ that ‘Meter defective from 12.9.1999 Changed only on 21.8.2000- Under Section 26(6), maximum period for which bill on average basis can be raised in case of defective/dead meter is 6 months and not for the entire period the meter remains defective or dead. O.P. directed to raise fresh bill only for period of 6 months, after calculating average as per commercial Circular No.13/96 - Extra payments, if already made by complainant, to be either refunded or adjusted in future bills.’

12.              It has been held by the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in 2015(2) CLT 582, case titled as ‘Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company ltd.& Ors. Vs. Babanrao Namdeorao Bahkar’ that ‘issuing bills on average basis without meter reading – Held to be deficiency in service.’

13.              As per Electricity Supply Instruction Manual 93.1, which reads as under:-

                   “There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or       otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment or demand /           load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the    authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL        employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or           due to application of wrong tariff/ multiplication factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities etc. In all such       cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the     charges levied.  

                        As per this circular, in all the such cases of burnt meter or wrong meter or defective meter, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. In the present case, no separate bill has been issued nor there is any complete details.

14.              From the above detailed discussion, it has emerged that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and bill dated 23.11.2018 amounting to Rs.29,240/- is hereby set-aside. Further, OPs are directed to raise fresh bill as per Section 26 (6) of Electricity Act only for period of 6 months, after calculating average as per commercial Circular No.13/96. Extra payments, if any already made by complainant, to be either refunded or adjusted in future bills. Further, OPs are directed to issue bill as per actual consumption in future. Further, OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental torture, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

15.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

01.08.2023         Member                          Member           President