Punjab

Sangrur

CC/339/2017

Khushpreet - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajinder Goyal

13 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  339

                                                Instituted on:    17.07.2017

                                                Decided on:       13.12.2017

 

Khushpreet D/o Sh. Ashok Kumar R/O Baba Jeevan Signh Nagar, Sohian Road, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Sub Urban, Sangrur, Sohian Road, Sangrur.

2.     Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall, Patiala through its CMD.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Rajinder Goyal, Adv.

For opposite parties  :       Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Ms. Khushpreet,  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 is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining one domestic electricity connection bearing account number 3003322903 with a sanctioned load of 0.700 KW  from the Ops in the month of June, 2016 and has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the OPs. The complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 25.09.2016 for Rs.26,680/- for the consumption of 3511 units, which is said to be excessive one as it could be due to jumping of the electricity meter in question. Further case of the complainant is that on the advice of the Ops, the complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing meter challenge fee, as such, the electricity meter was sent to the ME laboratory vide challan number 66 dated 15.5.2017 and told that the same was checked in the ME laboratory on 15.5.2017 and it was found to be quite OK, which is said to be totally wrong and illegal and against the rules and regulations of the OPs. It is stated further that the average consumption of the complainant is only 250-300 units per cycle. Though the complainant approached the Ops for withdrawal of the disputed demand, 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 said demand of Rs.26,680/- raised vide bill dated 25.9.2016 and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is not maintainable.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs.  It is further admitted that the OPs issued the bill in question for Rs.26,680/-.  It is further admitted that the complainant filed an application for checking of the meter and the same was checked in the ME laboratory and found to be quite OK. As such, it is stated that the demand is quite reasonable and as per the actual consumption of the electricity. Thus, the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 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.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining the electricity connection in question. It is further not in dispute that the Ops issued bill dated 25.9.2016 for Rs.26,680/- for the consumption of 3511 units.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing the meter challenge fee and the same was checked in the ME laboratory.

 

6.             At the outset, the case of the complainant is that she is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 25.09.2016 for Rs.26,680/- for the consumption of 3511 units, whereas her sanctioned load is only 0.700 KW. It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently that though the complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter in question, but the Ops checked it in the ME laboratory at their own without even calling the complainant.  It is worth mentioning here that the OPs have not produced on record the copy of meter change order.  There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why the same was not produced on record.    Further the complainant was not called for at the time of checking of the meter in the ME laboratory, which is very necessary as per own regulations of the OPs.  Further, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that though the electricity meter of the complainant was replaced by the OPs, but the same was not 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.26,680/- for consumption of 3511 units. 

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the copies of the electricity bills, which show that the sanctioned load of the complainant is only 0.700 KW.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has  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 the 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 discussed above.  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.  We further feel that the ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to charge the complainant for the disputed period on average basis of the previous six months.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.26,680/-raised vide bill dated 25.09.2016 and further direct the Ops to raise the demand for the disputed period by taking the average of previous six months.    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  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.

                December 13, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

                                                      

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member