BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.230 of 2020

      Date of Instt. 07.08.2020                   Date of Decision: 26.10.2022

Raj Kumar Bhalla, S/o Sh. Rajinder Nath Bhalla R/o WP-89, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2.       The AEE/PSPCL (OP), Sub Division Model House, Boota     Mandi, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Chandandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. K. L. Dua, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is actual and lawful consumer of electricity vide electricity account no.3002069132 installed in residential premises of the complainant at WP-80, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar, having load of 15.54 KW. The said connection is in the name of the grandmother of the complainant Mrs. Mathura Devi who has since expired. The said connection is Domestic Supply connection and is regularly checked by the officers/officials of opposite parties, atleast once in every month at the time of taking reading of electricity for issuance of energy consumption bills. The said meter is/was installed outside the boundary wall of the premises. All the bills issued by opposite parties have been paid, except impugned letter/memo pending adjudication. The complainant is using the said connection being the actual & lawful consumer and making the payments of energy bills issued by opposite parties. Thus there is a relationship of consumer and service provider within the complainant and opposite parties. Suddenly, OPs issued a letter no.678 dated 12.12.2019, against electric connection no.J71GT45/466 (3002969132). whereby complainant was asked to deposit amount of Rs.1,19,073/- on the pretext of demand made by audit, without giving the detail of period or amount so claimed, audit report, alleged calculation etc. On receipt of said impugned memo, the complainant called upon the officials of opposite party no.2 and asked for the reason/details for claiming said inflated amount in impugned letter vide representation dated 18.12.2019. No reply was given to the complainant against his representation dated 18.12.2019. However, on protest, the officials of the OP No.2 informed the complainant that audit has overhauled the account of the complainant for the period 05/16 to 08/17 considering the meter to be defective. The above said acts of the opposite parties in raising the demand of Rs.1,19,073 under the directives of audit is absolutely wrong and incorrect and is not in accordance with instructions of opposite parties. No inquiry or show cause or recovery proceedings have been conducted by opposite parties before issuing alleged letter/memo. No opportunity of hearing was accorded to complainant before making demand. The opposite parties have acted in gross forbiddance to their own rules and regulations wherein it is stipulated that before initiating proceedings or making any demand against any consumer, competent authority must issue show cause notice, quote the relevant regulation under which said action is being initiated. The complainant was never called for checking in ME Lab. No notice was issued to the complainant/consumer for procuring his presence in ME Lab during the alleged checking. Alleged checking was done in ME Lab in absence of consumer. The meter was also removed in absence of consumer/complainant, neither packed nor sealed. No consent or authority was bestowed to opposite parties to check the meter of complainant in his absence. Alleged checking if any by ME is done at the back of complainant or her representative. Assuming without admitting for the sake of arguments only that meter was defective, then it was the deliberate failure of the opposite parties to perform their legal obligation of removing the defective meter and installing the correct meter for fifteen months. The opposite parties on account of their own delay and latches to remove the defective meter cannot made the complainant to suffer by making exorbitant demand. It is/was the duty of opposite parties to install correct meter and ensure serviceability of electricity meter. The complainant had been honouring the demand made by the opposite parties without fail. The opposite parties in entire sequence of events have acted unilaterally in travesty to principle of natural justice. The whole act and approach of the opposite parties is callous, remorseful and their negligence is unpardonable, deficiency is inexcusable and all of them are guilty of unfair trade practice. The said illegal and unlawful acts of the opposite parties has caused a lot of mental tension, agony, inconvenience and harassment to the complainant 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 set-aside the alleged amount of Rs.1,19,073/- demanded by OPs vide impugned letter no.678 dated 12.12.2019. Further, OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant with interest @ 18% on the payments which the complainant may have to deposit to avoid disconnection.

 2.               Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present false complaint. The present complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this sole score. The present complaint has been filed just to delay the payment of the legal charges raised from the complainant. The correct demand has been raised from the complainant on the basis of the Audit Report Half Margin, as the meter of the complainant has remained defective, having Status of D, N, L, during the time of taking the consumption of the electricity consumed for the purpose of preparation of the Bill in respect of the electricity consumed. The Bill used to be sent for the Average Consumption Basis, during the said months. So when the meter was removed and correct meter was installed, then the account of the complainant was checked by the Audit Party of the Opposite Parties. The Difference of the amount in respect of the electricity consumed on the basis of the electricity consumed during the said months of the previous year and the amount actually paid during the Defective meter, so the Difference of the amount so came was raised from the complainant, as per the rules and regulations of the Power Corporation. So the complainant was legally liable to make the payment of the amount raised. The present complaint is the misuse of the process of this Commission. The false complaint has been filed, with malafide intention, just to claim the damages from the Opposite Party, who is performing their duties, honestly and with sincerity, to the entire satisfaction of the General Public, including the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties nor there is any illegal trade practice. No loss has been suffered by the complainant due to any act of the OP. So there is no question of any mental tension and harassment as alleged in the complaint. The false and frivolous complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs to the tune of Rs.20,000/- under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, the factum with regard to installation of the electricity meter in the house of the complainant is admitted. It is also admitted that the OPs issued a letter to complainant to deposit amount of Rs.1,19,073/- on the basis of the Audit Report, 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 complainant is alleging that he is the actual and lawful consumer of electricity, vide electricity account No.3002969132, which has been installed in the name of his grandmother namely Mrs. Mathura Devi, who has since expired. Aadhar Card has been proved as Ex.C-1. As per the bills produced on record by the OPs, the meter is in the name of Smt. Mathura Devi resident of WP-89, Jalandhar. The complainant has alleged that he is using the electricity. The connection has not been transferred in the name of complainant, who is one of the heirs of the deceased Smt. Mathura Devi, but the objection of the OPs that the complainant is not consumer, is not tenable as as per the amended supply code in the regulation 11.6.3 the word ‘may’ has been used, which shows that it is not mandatory to get the connection transferred in the name of heirs after death. Even otherwise, as per the Supply Code, 2014 and as per notification dated 29.06.2007 by Pb. State Electricity Regulatory, “the ‘Consumer’ means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a distribution licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under the Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a license, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;”. Thus, the complainant is using the electricity and as per the Supply Code and Notification, the complaint is maintainable.

7.                Now the complainant has alleged that the OPs issued a letter dated 12.12.2019 against the electricity connection no.J71-GT-45/466 (3002969132) making a demand of Rs.1,19,073/- on the pretext of demand made by Audit. The letter has been proved as Ex.C-3. Reply to the application was also given by the complainant on 18.12.2019, which has been proved as Ex.C-2. In this letter, the complainant has categorically mentioned that no detail has been given by the OP in this letter as to how the amount of Rs.1,19,073/- has been demanded by the OPs from the complainant. The OPs have relied upon the detail dated 13.11.2018 on the basis of which the amount has allegedly been charged, which has been proved by the complainant Ex.C-3 as well as by the OP Ex.OP-2. As per the allegations of the OP and perusal of Ex.OP-4, the meter of the complainant bearing No.100004535259 remained defective from 07.11.2016 to 11.09.2017. The OPs have proved on record the bill of the same period Ex.OP-7 to Ex.OP-16 which show that the meter has been shown to be defective and the meter has been changed as per Ex.OP-1 on 12.09.2017.

8.                The contention of the OPs is that the objection was raised by the Audit Party and the account of the complainant was overhauled on the basis of the report of the Audit, but the contention is not tenable. There is no explanation that how the Audit Party came to the conclusion that the meter was defective without the report of ME Lab cannot be accepted. There is no report of ME Lab to show that the meter was slow or the meter was not running stopped. The meter was never removed in the presence of the complainant nor the same was kept in the sealed box as per provisions of the code nor the same was got signed by the consumer i.e. complainant as per provisions of the code nor the testing of the meter was ever done in the presence of the consumer. No evidence has been led by the OP to prove that the provisions mentioned in the code have been complied with or the account of the complainant has been overhauled after following the rules and regulations and provisions of the Supply Code. As per the bills and the documents produced on record by the OPs, the meter remained defective from 07.11.2016 to 11.09.2017 i.e. for almost 10/11 months and the meter was changed on 12.09.2017 without any intimation to the complainant about the reasons of changing or replacing the meter. This is the negligence in duty on the part of the OPs.

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 remained defective for almost 10/11 months upto September 2017 from 07.11.2016, but the same was not replaced as per the instructions.

10.              As per the bills produced on record by the OPs Ex.OP-4 to Ex.OP-16, the consumption has been shown even in the defective meter. The defective meter was in the notice of the OPs, but no action was taken by the OPs. As such, there is no fault of the complainant. This was due to the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as it was their duty to replace the meter immediately when it came to their notice that the  meter is defective, but instead of replacing or changing the meter, they have been issuing the bills to the complainant by mentioning the arrears in the bill. As per 'Electricity Supply Code' and 'Related Matters Regulations 2007', wherein Clause 21.5.2 itself gave a direction to the employee of the Punjab State Corporation that “in case of dead or stop meter the accounts of the consumer shall be overhauled for the period meter remained defective/dead stop, subject to maximum period of six months”, but in the present case, if the meter was defective, the same was overhauled in the absence of the complainant and without intimation to the complainant. Despite that the amount of Rs.1,19,073/- have been demanded, which is against the Regulations 2007 and in support of this observation, we like to make reliance upon a pronouncement of our Hon'ble State Commission, cited in 2003(1) C. P. C. 310, titled as “Shingara Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and Another”, wherein his Lordship held as under:-

                   “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 15 & 12,           Electricity bill, amount of electricity bill was demanded from 1997         to 1999 on average basis, It is now settled law that maximum     period for which bill can be raised in respect of a defective meter          under Electricity Act is 6 months and no more, Order of District        Forum quashed, Case remanded for fresh decision keeping into        view above mentioned observations.”

11.               It has been held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, cited in 2012 (3) CPJ 59, titled as “Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Bherunlal”, which is as under:-

                   “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1) (f), 2(1) (g)          and 15 electricity-Defective meter – Bills sent to complainant on         average basis – Subsequently arrears included in the subsequent       bill as per the MRI report – Alleged deficiency in service – District        Forum allowed the complaint – Appeal against – Held, it is the     prime duty of corporation to install standard meters after due           testing – If any defective meter has been installed by corporation the burden cannot be put on consumer – Replacement of meter          directed – Impugned order upheld – Appeal dismissed.”

12.              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.”

13.               In the present case, as per rules and instructions of the code, the defective meter is to be changed within 10 working days and it is the responsibility of the OP. No provisions of the Code and regulations have been adopted and complied with by the OP. Therefore, the complainant cannot be held liable as there are no allegations of any mal-practice or tempering with the meter by the complainant.

14.              From the above detailed discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission and Rajasthan State Commission, 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 the demand raised by the OP, vide Letter No.678 dated 12.12.2019 against Khata No.J71-GT-450466 amounting to Rs.1,19,073/- is hereby set-aside and OPs are directed not to recover any amount from the complainant for the above said period. However, the OP can recover the amount, if any, due towards the complainant prior to 07.11.2016 when the meter was declared defective and after 12.09.2017, as per rules and regulations of the Code of PSPCL.  However, no amount shall be charged for the period the meter remained defective. Further OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental torture, to the tune of Rs.15,000/- 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     

26.10.2022         Member                          Member           President