Punjab

Sangrur

CC/68/2017

Yudhvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab Supply Power Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Saurav Garg

07 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    68

                                                Instituted on:      16.02.2017

                                                Decided on:       07.06.2017

 

 

Yudhvir Singh Advocate son of Shri Paramjit Singh, resident of Village Retgarh, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

 

                                        Versus

 

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its M.D.

 2.    Deputy Chief Engineer, Operation Circle, Powercom. Sohian Road, Sangrur, Distt. Sangrur.

3.     Asstt. Executive Engineer, (SDO), PSPC Ltd. Sub Division, Gharachon, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Saurav Garg, Adv.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Yudhvir Singh,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained one domestic electricity connection bearing account number RG44/221 with a connected load of 9.39 KW and the electricity meter was installed outside the premises of the complainant in a box. The representative of the Ops was taking the reading on monthly basis.  The complainant is aggrieved on receiving a notice number 1662 dated 4.10.2016 demanding an amount of Rs.1,79,736/- on the ground that the meter was challenged by the complainant during October 2015 and the meter was sent to the ME laboratory Sangrur and after testing the same, it was found OK.  It is further averred that to the said notice, the complainant submitted a detailed reply to the Ops on 15.11.2016 and stated that the working of the meter was never challenged by the complainant, however, at the time of taking the meter reading, the representative of the OPs declared the meter being defective one.  It is further stated that the meter was never packed and sealed in a cardboard box.  The complainant even submitted a detailed representation dated 25.1.2017 to the OP number 3, but all in vain. Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the supplementary demand and to accept the current payment bill and further not to disconnect the connection in question for non payment of the supplementary demand and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint, that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.    On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by getting a domestic electricity connection bearing number RG-44/221 with a sanctioned load of 9.39 KW. It is further stated that the Ops have been issuing the bills to the complainant as per the actual consumption of the electricity.  It is further stated that in fact that on the report of meter reader on key exception report, the meter of the complainant became defective in the month of August, 2015 and due to the said reasons, the meter of the complainant was changed in the month of September, 2015 vide MCO number 07/103510 dated 11.9.2015 and the same was effective on the same day and at that time the reading was to be 35005 of meter having serial number 1906054 and the removed meter was duly packed as per the rules.  It is further averred that thereafter the meter was sent to the ME laboratory and the same was confirmed that the last consumption reading of the meter is 35005, whereas the earlier reading was 12518 units, therefore, the complainant was billed for 22487 units i.e. Rs.1,47,516/-, which is as per the actual consumption.  Further it has been stated that the complainant challenged the new meter by depositing the requisite fee and as such the meter number 603944 was removed vide MCO number 131/103504 dated 2.6.2016 and the same was dully packed and sealed and the meter was sent to the ME laboratory vide store challan number 15 dated 10.8.2016 and the same was found to be OK. As such, the Ops demanded the bill for the consumption units after deducting the paid units i.e. 2872 units meaning thereby the complainant was charged  for Rs.27409/-, total Rs.1,79,736/- which is said to be legal one.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of bill dated 16.9.2015, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-15 copies of letters and copies of bills etc. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-15 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence.

 

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

 

5.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact the connection in question is running in the name of the complainant, as such, he is a consumer of the OPs under the connection in question. In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving a notice number 1662 dated 4.10.2016 demanding an amount of Rs.1,79,736/-, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4 and the amount has been raised on the basis of checking of the meter in the ME laboratory.  We have perused the copies of the meter change orders  dated 11.8.2015 and 2.6.2016, copies of which are on record as Ex.OP-9 and Ex.OP-10, but a bare perusal of it shows that the same have been signed neither by the complainant nor by any of  the official of the OPs nor the complainant is shown to have been called in the ME laboratory report nor it is shown that the meters of the complainant have been checked in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative, which is a clear cut violation of the own instructions of the OPs.  Further it is worth mentioning here that the consumption so charged by the OPs to the tune of 22478  as mentioned in the reply of the OPs is not admissible, whereas the average consumption of the complainant was to the tune of 927 units per month.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the amount has been charged rightly as the meter in question at the time of checking in the ME laboratory was found quite OK.  But, the stand of the learned counsel for the complainant is that though the electricity meter of the complainant was replaced by the OPs, but the same was never packed and sealed in a card board box nor the same was checked in the ME laboratory in the presence of the complainant or his representative nor the complainant was ever called for at the time of checking of the electricity meter in question, as such he has prayed for quashing the disputed demand of Rs.1,79,736/-. 

 

 

6.             We have very carefully perused the copies of the electricity bills, which show that the sanctioned load of the complainant is 9.39 KW.  The Ops have not produced any copy of the MCO to show that the signatures of the complainant or his representative were ever obtained. Further the copy of the ME laboratory report, Ex.OP-2 nowhere shows that the complainant was called to come present in the ME laboratory at the time of checking of the meter in the ME laboratory.

 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the removed meter in question was not packed and sealed as per the instructions contained in commercial circular number 8/99, which provides that as per the existing instructions contained in para 2 ( c) of CC number 45/97 dated 17.12.1997, it is mandatory that all meters removed against any MCO are to be sent to ME laboratories, in the sealed card box duly signed by the concerned PSEB officers/officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case, consumer refused to sign the meter test results/report, such meters shall be kept in the sealed box by the OP.S/Divn. till the final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Dispute Settlement Committee or Civil Courts, such sealed meter shall be returned to the ME laboratories. Similar procedure is to be adopted in case meters sealed by the Enforcement Agencies/Operation Organization in theft cases.”  But, in the present case, no such instructions have been followed by the Ops rather the same have been violated by the own officers/officials of the OPs.  There is nothing mentioned in the written reply of the OPs that whether the meter in question was packed in the cardboard box and thereafter it was sealed and signed by the complainant and officer/officials of the OPs.    The electricity meter in question was neither replaced in the presence of the consumer nor his representative as is evident from the copy of MCO, Ex.OP/9 and Ex.OP-10.  In Tarsem Singh versus Punjab State Electricity Board 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 584 (P&H), it has been held that checking of the defective meters should be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative.  A notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date, time and place of testing of meter.  Procedure prescribed to this effect in the Punjab State Electricity Board’s Commercial circulars number 45/98 and 8/99 is mandatory.  But, in the present case, there is no explanation that why such instructions as contained in the commercial circular number 8/99 were not adhered to by the OPs.  In these circumstances, we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

 

8.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the notice number 1662 dated 4.10.2016 demanding an amount of Rs.1,79,736/- and raise a fresh bill by taking the average of  six months of the same period of previous year.  The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of  litigation expenses.         

 

9.             This order of ours shall be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 7, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                             

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member