BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

  Complaint No.128 of 2020

       Date of Instt. 20.02.2020

       Date of Decision:08.05.2023

S. Daljit Singh Chhabra, Advocate s/o Late S. Jiwan Singh c/o 193, Gujral Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2.       AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Model Town       Commercial, Sub-Division No.5, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

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

Present:       Sh. J. S. Sodhi, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.  

                   Sh. D. R. Seth, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that complainant is consumer of electricity vide electric connection No.3001378607 falling under the jurisdiction of OP No.2. The same is installed on the second floor of the building which is being used as an extended office of the complainant. The complainant is using the said connection being the actual and lawful consumer and making the payments of energy bills issued by the OPs. In the month of August, 2018, the complainant received a bill bearing No.20184240818161645 dated 24.08.2018 payable by 10.09.2018 of the amount of Rs.14,000/-on Average Basis. This bill was about 7 times more than the consumption bills received by the complainant for the use of the electrical energy. Immediately the complainant brought the said fact to the notice of the OP and enquired as to why the Average Bill has been sent. The Complainant submitted the application dated 18.09.2018 for checking the meter. Consequent to the request of the complainant, the meter was checked and it was found defective and an order of change of meter was made on the application itself by the OPs. A new meter was installed in the premises and it started recording the consumption of the electrical energy consumed by the office of the complainant. It may be stated that the complainant has only an extended office where no manufacturing or allied activities are being undertaken and only an office of an Advocate using LED lights, Fans are being used. Even they are used sparingly. Even after the change of the meter, the effective consumption was the same as was prior to August, 2018. After the defective meter was changed, the complainant was shell shocked to receive a Bill dated 23.10.2018 bearing No.20184231018113523 payable by 08.11.2018 for a sum of Rs.34,750/. Before the complainant could get the answer to such exorbitant bill, the complainant received another bill dated 21.12.2018 bearing No. 20184211218115029 payable by 07.01.2019 of an amount of Rs.66,570/-. The bills were extremely exorbitant and the complainant protested the same and brought to the notice of opposite parties that the bills are extremely unwarranted and that the bills be rectified. The inquiries revealed that the OPs calculated the average bill on the average highest reading which is criteria is illegal. The meter, if defective was not because of any fault of the complainant and he was not bound to make the payment. The OPs however, pressed upon the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- as part amount before the rectification is made. The complainant at the asking of the OPs deposited Rs.20,000/- on 07.03.2019. The OPs failed to discharge their statutory obligations and the meter, if defective, was required to be changed by the OPs and the complainant could not be faulted for the same. There was no reason or ground for the opposite to keep the defective meter on site. The OPs thereafter are sending all the bills with exorbitant arrears and are adding surcharge and penalties in it. The last bill received by the complainant dated 23.12.2019 payable by 07.01.2020 for an amount of Rs.1,16,010/- which includes actual consumption of approx Rs.850/- and the arrears and the surcharge on the arrears and total has been inflated to Rs.1,16,010/-. There was no reason or ground for the OPs to continue sending the exorbitant bills to the complainant. The OPs because of their own latches, made the complainant suffer by issuing exaggerated bills based on average highest consumption. Since OPs are monopolistic institution and there is no survival without electricity, the OPs are threatening to disconnect the connection of electricity and the very working of the complainant and his office would be jeopardized which could be prevented only if the OPs are restrained from disconnecting the electric meter above said 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 charges of highest average consumption as levied in the bill of August, 2018, October, 2018 and December, 2018 and the arrears and the surcharge levied on it in subsequent bills. Further, OPs be directed to refund an amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by the complainant alongwith interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.  

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the charges leveled are on account of consumption of current bills plus arrears of current year and plus arrears of previous years of the electricity consumed by the complainant having electric connection Account No.3001378607 Non Residential Supply (NRS) with sanctioned load of 5.00 KW which is quite apparent from the consumption data and statement of accounts enclosed herewith. The charges leveled are rightly and legally charged as per rules, regulations and instructions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. As such there is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of the respondents. It is further averred that the complainant does not have any cause of action against the OPs. The complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further averred that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint as the electric meter was being used for commercial purposes and the complainant should have approached the Dispute Settlement Committee a competent authority of the OPs to get his dispute settled/decided. It is further averred that the complainant does not have the locus-standi to file the present complaint. On merits, the factum with regard to written an application dated 18.09.2018 by the complainant for checking the meter is admitted and meter was also checked by the JE and the old meter was replaced, 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.                    The complainant has alleged that he is a practicing Advocate dealing Income Tax/sale Tax matters at Jalandhar. Ex.C1 is the enrolment certificate showing him to be enrolled as an Advocate with Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. The Complainant is the consumer of electricity, vide electric connection No.3001378607.This fact has been admitted by the OPs. The complainant has alleged the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs by sending bills showing highest average consumption.

6.                The OPs have raised objection regarding maintainability of the complaint on the ground that this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the electric meter was being used for commercial purposes.

7.                Ex.C1 proves that the complainant is an Advocate. This fact has not been specifically denied by the OPs. 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 office by an advocate in a building 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.

8.                The complainant has alleged that the bill dated 24.8 2018 was sent on average basis for Rs.14000/-and the same has been proved as ExC4.The complainant wrote an application to the OPs on 18.9.2018 for checking the meter. The application has been proved as ExC-5. On checking the meter was found defective and the same was changed. Even after moving the application Ex.C5 the bills were sent for Rs.34,750/- dated 23.10 2018 and the bill dated 21.12 2018 for Rs.66,570/-. The copies of the bills have been proved as Ex.C6 and ExC7. Perusal of these bills shows that these were issued from 2.7.2018 to 23.10.18 and from 2.7.2018 to 21.12.2018. Both these bills were issued on average basis. Both these bills cover the period from 02.07.2018 to 23.10.2018, which shows that the bill Ex.C7 has been issued second time including the same period as was in Ex.C6. Ex.C9 shows that this bill is from 19.10 2019 to 23.12.2019 and the type is normal. This bill includes the current year arrear and previous year arrears.

9.                In the written statement, it has been alleged by the OPs that as per consumption data of the consumer the consumption of the consumer was recorded as nil w.e.f. 2015 upto 2018 and it is presumed that the meter was dead from the very beginning. Meter was changed vide meter change order issued on 26.12.2018 and effected on 7.3.2019. The meter was changed after six months of the application moved by the complainant for checking the meter Ex.C-5. As per submission of the Ld. Counsel for OPs, bills were sent on the basis of consumption. He has relied upon Ex.OP5. As per this document consumption, status, bill amount and payment date has been shown meaning thereby that the meter was not dead as alleged. The presumption of OPs is wrong. No document, guidelines or instructions have been proved by the OPs which may show that the bills can be issued on the basis of presumption. The meter has been allegedly checked in the ME lab. Report and consent of the consumer has been proved as Ex.OP2. Perusal of this document show that this consent is on the paper prepared by the OPs not on the consumers own paper. This shows that this consent letter has been procured by the OPs and the signatures of the complainant have been obtained on it.

10.              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 changed after six months of receiving the complaint, which is in violation of instructions in the supply code.

11.              Further, '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 this case, the meter was defective. The same was presumed to be dead from 2015 to 2018 without the checking by the OPs even after receiving the payment for consumption as per Ex.OP-5. Despite this the impugned bill was issued, which is again against the regulations 2007.

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.”

                   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. Thus the complainant cannot be held liable as there are no allegations of any malpractice or tempering with the meter by the complainant.

13.              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.’

14.              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.’

15.              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

16.               The Ld. Counsel for the OPs has relied upon Ex.OP7, which shows the note given by OPs that the complainant is having other  accounts in his name. Meters and connections have been issued by the OPs. No rules and regulations have been brought by the OPs to show that the connections are wrong nor there is any such noting in this document to this effect rather the same is to the effect that both the meters should be provided from same T/F. No objection has been raised by the OPs in Ex.OP-7.

17.               From the above detailed discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab 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 bills issued by the OPs from 02.07.2018 to 21.12.2018 Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 are hereby set-aside. Extra payment made by the complainant to the OP by way of arrears of the above said period and charged in subsequent bills including Rs.20,000/-, already paid by the complainant as per order of the Commission dated 24.02.2020 be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in future bill. 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 already made by complainant, to be either refunded or adjusted in future bills. 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.8000/-. 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.

18.               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     

08.05.2023         Member                          Member              President