Complainant Kashmir Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.74,791/- raised vide notice bearing No.1579 dated 21.12.2015 and also restrain the opposite parties from recovering the alleged amount of Rs.74,791/- from the complainant. Complainant has also claimed Rs.20,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 18% Per Annum from the date of due till its actual realization along with litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that he is law abiding and peace loving citizen and thus commands considerable respect in the locality. It was pleaded that complainant had got installed an electric meter bearing Account No.AN-341598 in his house for domestic purpose and the connected load of the above said connection was 1.90 K.W. Complainant is hiring the services of the opposite parties and as such he is the consumer of the opposite parties and paying the electricity charges regularly to the opposite parties without any default. It was pleaded that meter of the complainant was faulty as it shows excess consumption than the consumption being used by the complainant and as such complainant had moved an application on 23.4.2013 to opposite party No.2 which was marked to Jagdish Singh J.E. who visited the spot and checked the meter of the complainant and made report on the application that some internal defect is found in the said electric meter and meter was showing excess reading and after that opposite parties removed the said faulty meter and installed new one. It was further pleaded that at the time of removing the meter opposite parties did not kept the same in the Card Board and also did not seal in the presence of the complainant and even they had not taken any consent regarding the checking of the said electric meter in the M.E. Lab. It was also pleaded that opposite parties have issued notice bearing No.1579 dated 21.12.015 amounting to Rs.74,791/- to the complainant which was illegal, null & void and against the instructions of PSPCL and not binding upon the rights of the complainant. It was pleaded that in the above said notice it was alleged that on 12.8.2014 opposite parties had earlier issued a notice to the complainant but on the other hand he had not received the same. It was pertinent to mention here that the alleged checking had been done at the back of the complainant. It was next pleaded that complainant had requested the opposite parties to admit his claim but they refused to admit his claim and threatened the complainant that they will recover the alleged amount from the complainant illegally, forcibly and by using coercive methods which necessitated the complainant to file the instant complaint. It was pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties complainant had suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment so there is a clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply stating therein that it was admitted that an electric connection bearing account No.AN-34 1598 with sanctioned load 1.90 K.W. had been installed in the house of the complainant for domestic purpose and as such he the consumer of the opposite parties. It was stated that complainant had alleged that the meter bearing No.172502 had been showing excess consumption than the electricity being consumed by him and he challenged the said meter and deposited requisite fee vide BA 16 No.104/85639 dated 25.4.2013 and this connection was removed from his premises with his consent and this meter was sent to M.E. Lab. Batala vide Challan No.162 dated 03.01.2014 where the same was inspected by the S.D.O. M.E. Lab. Batala in the presence of other senior officials of PSPCL and meter was found OK meaning thereby that the meter was functioning rightly. It was stated that as per the report of M.E.Lab and record of concerned Sub Division of PSPCL a difference of 9762 units was found in the reading of the meter and to recover the costs of 9762 units consumed by the complainant a notice vide memo No.3227 dated 12.8.2014 for Rs.74791/- was served upon the complainant which was received by one Kamaljit Kaur the daughter of the complainant but they did not pay any heed to it and later on another notice bearing memo No.1579 dated 21.12.2015 was served upon the complainant which was received by one Jatinder Singh against his signatures but even then complainant did not pay any heed to it and had not made any payment of the amount in dispute and as such the connection of the complainant was disconnected temporarily vide TDCO application No.100001509870 dated 05.01.2016 which was effected on 27.01.2016. It was denied that at the time of removal of the meter J.E. Jagdish Singh had made report on the application that he had found some internal defect in the meter. It was further stated that meter in question was removed from the premises of the complainant as per rules and regulations of PSPCL. It was denied that the alleged demand of Rs.74791/- was illegal, null & void and it was also denied that the impugned notice was not binding upon the rights of the complainant. It was stated that previous notice bearing memo No.3227 dated 12.08.2014 was issued to the complainant which was received by Kamaljit Kaur, the daughter of the complainant against her signatures. It was further stated that the complainant had consumed the electricity and he was liable to make the payment of Rs.74791/- the cost of 9762 units which was consumed by him. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Counsel for the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with document Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Ajit Singh Sran SDO Ex.OP-1 along with document Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
6. We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties, heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose adjudication of the present complaint.
7. That the sanctioned and existing load of the meter of the complainant is only 1.90 K.W. The complainant owns a house and his connection was only for domestic purpose. The meter of the complainant was faulty as it shows excess consumption than the consumption being used by the complainant and the complainant had moved an application on 23.4.2013 to opposite party No.2, which was marked to Jagdish Singh J.E. who visited the spot and checked the meter of the complainant and made report on the application that some internal defect is found in the said electric meter and meter was showing excess reading. Copy of the application is on the file is Ex.C3 and Ex.OP-2. After that opposite parties removed the said faulty meter and installed new one. Meter of the complainant was removed on 25.4.2013 and sent in M.E. Lab. for checking on 03.01.2014 after a very long gap. At the time of removing the said meter, opposite parties did not keep the same in the Card Board and also did not seal in the presence of the complainant. Even the opposite parties had not taken any consent regarding the checking of the said electric meter in the M.E. Lab. Even no notice has been served upon the complainant before checking in the M.E. Lab. Moreover, only copy of challan produced but no detailed M.E. Lab. report produced by the opposite parties. Meter was not checked by the opposite parties from M.E. Lab. in the presence of complainant which act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
8. In the light of our above observation and findings, complaint filed by complainant is partly allowed and the impugned demand of the opposite parties of Rs.74,791/- is set aside being illegal, null and void. If the complainant has deposited any amount against this demand the same is directed to be refunded to the complainant besides payment of Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of order be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order failing which opposite parties shall refund the deposited amount @ 9% interest from the date of order till actual payment.
- Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
JUNE, 17, 2016 Member.
*YP*
