DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 488 of 9.12.2019

                                      Decided on: 8.8.2024

Shiv Badan, aged about 32 years son of Late Sh.Ram Asrey, r/o H.No.21 (Old H.No.4064/3) Marya Street, Ragho Majra, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Commercial (East) Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Model Town, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh.Pushvinder Singh, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.P.S.Jaggi, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal, counsel for the OPs.      

ORDER

                                                G.S.NAGI, MEMBER

1. The instant complaint is filed by Sh.Shiv Badan (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant is a consumer of the PSPCL having domestic connection bearing a/c No.3000041019 running in the name of Sh.Kulwant Singh under the office of OP No.2.That Kulwant Singh had since expired.
3. That complainant and his family were residing in the said house and Kulwant Singh gifted the house to the complainant for the services rendered by him. That the complainant is using the said electric connection and is beneficiary of service and is a consumer of the OPs.
4. It is averred that complainant is depositing the electricity bills regularly issued on the basis of consumption recorded through meter. That the meter of the complainant is installed on a pole on the road outside the house  alongwith three other meters in a meter box. The meter box is locked by the department and key of the same is with the department. The meter is in assessable to the complainant.
5. That in the month of 9/2019 there was a problem in the electricity supplied to the complainant regarding which he made complaint in the complaint centre. The staff of the complaint centre visited the house of the complainant and also checked the position of the meter and informed that the meter of the complainant has got burnt and the same will be replaced with new one. In the mean time they restored the supply of the complainant by giving direct supply.
6. That meter of the complainant removed after many days and new meter was installed. The complainant deposited bill during the time also when meter was not installed at his premises. That he was surprised on receipt of letter No.1998 dated 6.11.2019 written by OP No.2 having raised a demand of Rs.42850/- stating therein that “As per M.E.Lab Patiala challan No.3803/8 dated 5.11.2019,FR of the meter is 15469 and as per SAP  reading is 10525.The consumer has been charged the amount of 4944 units which is as under:

SOP35597+ED IDF 6407+ MT712 + CC 99 =42815.

7. That after receiving the said letter dated 6.11.2019 complainant visited OP No.2 to inquire about the said demand who told that the same has been raised on the basis of M.E.Lab report.
8. That the meter of the complainant was changed. The meter was not packed in the cardboard box and the signatures of the complainant were not obtained on any such packing. Also the complainant was not informed to be present in the M.E.Lab at the time of testing of the meter. That the demand raised by the OPs is illegal and arbitrary. The complainant requested the OPs to withdraw the demand but the OPs flatly refused to do so. That the complainant has been facing mental pain, agony and great inconvenience due to the acts of the OPs. That there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
9. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to quash the demand of Rs.42815/- raised vide letter No.1998 dated 6.11.2019; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental pain, agony and inconvenience alongwith costs of litigation expenses.
10. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement having contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Court with clean hands.
11. On merits, it is admitted that an electric connection bearing account No.3000041019 is running in the name of Sh.Kulwant Singh at the above said premises. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.42850/- is due against the above said connection. It is also admitted that meter of the connection in question has got burnt which was removed after many days and new meter was installed. It is further submitted that meter change order was issued on 27.9.2019, however, the same was changed on 2.11.2019 because of shortage of meters. It is admitted that letter No.1998 dated 6.11.2019 was sent with regard to the connection in question for a sum of Rs.42850/-
12. It is further submitted that when the burnt meter was removed then the reading of the same was not visible. Thereafter said burnt meter was packed in card board box and was taken to ME Lab Patiala by Sh.Gaurav Monga, JE and was checked in the ME Lab on 5.11.2019 when it was found that actual reading of the meter was 15469 units but the complainant could not be charged upto that units as the reading was not visible at the time of removal of the meter and the complainant was charged upto reading of 10525  only as per the last reading shown in the reading details and there was difference of 4944 units. As such the amount of Rs.42815/- was charged on account of difference of units but no amount was deposited. It is submitted that the present case is not of meter tempering but it is a case of actual consumption, which could not be taken due to the meter burnt. It is further submitted that the burnt meter is used to check as a routine checking and consumer is not called at the time of routine checking and that the consumer is called at ME Lab in theft cases only. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
13.  In evidence, ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 copies of bills, Ex.C6 copy of letter No.1998 dated 6.11.2019 and closed the evidence.
14. The ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA affidavit of Harpreet Singh, SDO, Ex.OPB affidavit of Gaurav Monga, JE, Ex.OPC affidavit of Er.Sachin Kumar, SDO, ME Lab.,PSPCL alongwith documents, Exs.OP1 to OP8 and closed the evidence.
15. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
16. The complainant has alleged that he is using electricity from the domestic connection bearing a/c No.3000041019. It is alleged that the meter of the complainant got burnt in the month of 9/2019 and matter was brought to the notice of the OPs. The meter of the complainant was replaced. The complainant has been served a notice vide Memo No.1998 dated 6.11.2019 as per Ex.C6 wherein a demand of Rs.42815/- was made on account of difference in the reading detected at the time of checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab vide challan No.3803/8 dated 5.11.2019.
17.  The complainant has alleged that he has been paying his consumption bills regularly for which he has placed on record the bills Exs.C1 to C5 and has disputed the said notice and has prayed for setting aside the said notice alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-on account of mental agony , pain and harassment.
18. The OPs in their written statement and also in the affidavit of Harpreet Singh, SDO, Sub Division Commercial -2, PSPCL, Patiala , as per Ex.OPA have pleaded that disputed connection in question is running in the name of Kulwant Singh and have denied that complainant is beneficiary of the said connection. The OPs have submitted that the meter of the complainant got burnt and was replaced vide MCO dated 27.9.2019, as per Ex.OP1 as per which the meter of the complainant was replaced on 2.11.2019. The reading of the meter was not visible at the time of the replacement of the burnt meter. The meter was packed in a card board box and was brought to M.E.Lab by Sh.Gaurav Monga, JE where it was checked against challan No.3803/8 dated 5.11.2019 as per Ex.OP2.The reading of the meter was found to be 15469.It is submitted that prior to the replacement of the meter the complainant was charged upto to the reading of 10525 and as such the complainant was charged on account of difference of 4944 units upto which the complainant was billed i.e.10525 and reading that was detected in the ME Lab i.e. 15469. A notice bearing memo No.1998 dated 6.11.2019 as per ,Ex.OP4 was then issued to the complainant for Rs.42815/-on account of difference of units detected as above.
19. The OPs have submitted that the amount charged to the complainant is on the basis of the actual consumption and as such the same is  in order and is recoverable .The OPs have also placed on record copy of  consumption history of the complainant from 11/2011 onwards as per Ex.OP3.
20. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
21. Admittedly the complainant is using domestic electricity connection bearing a/c No.3000041019 which is running in the name of Kulwant Singh. In response to the pleadings regarding regular payment of bill by the complainant, the OPs have stated that an amount of Rs.42815/- is outstanding against the complainant. This amount of Rs.42815/- pertains to the notice No.1998 dated 6.11.2019 which was served to the complainant on account of difference of the units in respect of the burnt meter which was replaced by the OPs. From the perusal of the bills produced by the complainant as well as the OPs and averments of the OPs, it transpires that the complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly.
22.  It is also a fact that the meter of the complainant is installed at a pole outside the premises of the complainant. A perusal of bills further indicates that the sanctioned load of the complainant is merely 0.300KW. A study of the consumption history produced by the OPs reveals that actual yearly consumption of the complainant  prior to the burning of the meter  and with OK status of the meter is in the range of 1232 to 1580 units from the year 2013 onwards as tabulated below:

23. It is also a fact that the readings were being recorded by the OPs regularly from the year 2013 onwards and all these readings were recorded with OK status of the meter. There is no dispute with regard to these readings or consumption of the complainant. The complainant was billed upto the reading of 10525 on 26.9.2019 and reading of 15469 was detected in M.E.Lab and complainant was charged on account of different of 4944 units for Rs.42815/-.As such the consumption of 4944 units from 26.9.2019 from the date of replacement of meter 2.11.2019 is abnormal as compared to the past consumption history of the complainant from the year 2013 onwards notwithstanding the checking of the meter in M.E.Lab..
24. It is also not the case of the OPs that there was suppression of reading by the complainant as the meter of the complainant was installed outside his premises and he had no control over the meter. Moreover, the readings were being recorded correctly from 2013 onwards with the OK status of the meter. We are of the opinion that the complainant has been billed abnormally and the amount billed to the complainant on account of difference of units is not in order.
25. Accordingly OPs are directed to issue bill from 3.6.2019 when the reading of the complainant was recorded as 9861 with OK status of the meter to 2.11.2019 when the burnt meter of the complainant was replaced, on the basis of the consumption recorded by the complainant during the corresponding period of the previous year as per regulation 21.5.2(a) of the Supply Code 2014 issued by Punjab State Electricity Regulation Commission governing the conditions of supply and tariff etc..
26. It has also been brought to the notice of this Commission by the ld. counsel for the complainant regarding the remission policy of the OPs as notified by the Department of Power, Govt. of Punjab vide memo no.2/22/2016 EB2/469 dated 13.7.2022 and adopted by the OPs vide Commercial Circular No.21/2022, as per which the pending arrears in respect of all domestic consumer as on 31.12.2021 has been waived off. In the instant case the dispute of the complainant also pertains to the period from 9/2019 to 11/2019 and the amount has not been deposited by the complainant and complainant is also a domestic consumer and as such falls under the guidelines regarding the waiver of the bills as stated above. We are of the opinion that the bill of the complainant is liable to be considered as per above said circular and notification of Punjab Govt.  No order as to costs.           
27.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           PUSHVINDER SINGH

                                              Member                          President