Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/66

Pushpa Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

11 Jan 2016

ORDER

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Smt. Pushpa Chopra through her Special Power of Attorney,  Sh. Narinder Kumar, has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’) praying therein that the O.P. be directed to prepare bill on the basis of the reading. 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that she had applied for a non-residential supply category power connection with the O.P. on 29.01.2014, for the health centre (Gym), which is being run by her to earn livelihood. The said connection was installed on 20.3.2014 vide meter Account No.RK74/4187I, but till date of filing of the said complaint, she had received no bill against the said connection. She had requested the the O.P., many times, to prepare the bill, so that she could pay the same timely, but the officials of the O.P. declined her request every time, saying that her connection was yet to be transferred to the computerized record. However, on 19.2.2015, the meter stopped showing consumption reading. Accordingly, she made a written request to the O.P. but no official turned up to check or resolve the problem and the matter was delayed on one pretext or the other. After some time, the said meter again started showing the reading. In the beginning of June 2015, its reading was about 13300 KWH. When the meter in question was installed at her premises, its reading i.e. the units consumed by the earlier meter-holder, was 7783 KWH. That means, she was not allotted a new meter, but the same was a used one. On 15.6.2015, the meter again stopped displaying the reading. She again requested the O.P. to replace the meter with a new one. Its officials collected a sum of Rs.1910/- from her on 18.6.2015 for the said purpose and the replaced the meter on the next day. She requested the officials of the O.P. to prepare the bill on the basis of the reading recorded by the removed meter, but they told her that as display of the said meter had lost, the bill would be prepared on the basis of some factor/formula. When she verbally enquired about the said factor/formula, the estimated bill to be prepared on the basis of the same came more than even twice the actual consumption. She requested the officials of the O.P. to get the reading of the removed (old/defective) meter retrieved from their laboratory, so that the bill could be raised on the basis of the real consumption. She is ready to pay the bill for the period from the date of installation of the said removed (old/defective) meter till the date of installation of the new meter i.e. 18.6.2015, but as per the reading of the removed meter. In the alternate, if its reading cannot be retrieved from the laboratory, the O.P. may take reading for the next 15 months, which will include the consumption during the winter as well as summer months, , and generate the bill, accordingly.

 

3.                 On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written version, taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be dismissed as the connection in question is a commercial category connection, as such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the same; that as per Supply Code and ESIM (Electricity Supply Instructions Manual), the present complaint does not lie; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the same; that she has not approached this Forum with clean hands, as she has suppressed the material facts from this  Forum and has filed this complaint just to harass & humiliate the O.P. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had applied for non-residential supply category power connection on 29.01.2014, and the same was released vide account No.RK74/4187, but it is denied that the same was installed on 20.3.2014 and it is stated that the said connection was installed on 5.3.2014. It is further stated that the

O.P. had  changed its billing record from manual system to SAP system. Due to the said reason, the new bills could not be issued, immediately. It is admitted that the old meter installed in the premises of the complainant, stopped showing consumption reading, but it is denied that the same stopped on 19.2.2015. It is stated that as the complainant had failed to deposit the amount/cost of burnt meter, earlier, that is why, the new meter could not be installed. However, on deposit of Rs.1910/- by the her on 18.6.2015, the meter was changed on the said date itself, in place of the burnt meter. It is further admitted that the reading of the old meter at the time of its installation was 7783 KWH but is denied that later on, it recorded the reading as 13300. In one para in the complaint, the complainant has alleged that the meter stopped working on 19.2.2015, whereas in another para, she has alleged that it started showing reading in June 2015, thus, she has made contradictory statements. It is admitted that the complainant had requested the O.P. to prepare bill for the removed meter and that its officials informed her that the bill would be prepared on the basis of LDHF (load x days x hours x factor), but she was not ready to listen the same. The O.P. has acted as per the provisions of the law and had prepared bill from 5.3.2014 to 10.7.2015 and not uptil 18.6.2015, as alleged by the complainant. It is further stated that it is impossible to retrieve the meter reading from the laboratory.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof with costs, it being without any merits.

 

4.                The complainant has also filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the O.P. stating therein that the N.R.S. consumers, who consume electricity for earning their livelihood by of self-employment, are recognized as consumers of the PSPCL. She is neither trading in or reselling the electricity to any other party, and is using the same for earning her livelihood. During pendency of the instant complaint, the O.P. had issued a bill on 20.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,65,860/- to her and she had deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the said amount, under protest on 21.7.2015. The new meter reading of 1188 KWH shown in the said bill is correct, but the old meter reading shown as 27922-7783=20139 is fake. The bill has been generated for the period from 28.1.2014 to 10.7.2015 i.e. for 528 days, whereas she had applied for the meter on 29.1.2014 and as admitted by the O.P. itself in its written version, the old meter remained installed for the period from 5.3.2014 to 18.6.2015 i.e. for 472 days. As such, the record of the O.P. is incorrect and self-contradictory. As per her knowledge, the meter was installed either on 19.3.2014 or 20.3.2014. The date of installation as mentioned by the O.P. as 5.3.2014 may be the date of meter sanction. The O.P. may be directed to produce the meter installation documents of March, 2014, to bring on record the actual date of installation of the meter. In March, 2014, the JE of the O.P. installed the meter, which displayed the reading for a moment only, as such, she refused to sign the installation documents. The next day, the said JE brought a new meter and installed the same with a previous consumption reading of 7783 KWH. Thereafter, she signed the installation documents, which can be said the correct day of installation of the said meter. The O.P. can be directed to produce the installation documents so that correct dates may be retrieved. It is further stated that on 19.2.2015, she had filed a written complaint to the O.P. regarding the fact that the meter was no longer showing the reading and again requested for issuance of the pending bill, for which she had been verbally requesting it for the last many months. It is denied that the old meter had burnt, as stated by the O.P. in para No. 2 of the written version filed by it. It is stated that the old meter did not stop working entirely, but it stopped displaying the reading. On 15.6.2015, the meter again stopped showing any reading. She immediately contacted the O.P. and as directed by it, deposited a sum of Rs.1910/- on 18.6.2015 for installation of a new meter, which was installed on 19.6.2015. From 19.2.2015, the date of filing of above said complaint by her with the O.P., till replacement of the old meter on 18.6.2015, she was never directed to deposit the installation charges. Although the meter was not burnt, she was asked to deposit the re-installation charges, illegally, because at the time of deposit of security amount, she had also deposited the cost of the meter. Therefore, on 18.6.2015, the O.P. got deposited from her the cost of the meter, for the second time. As such, the old defective meter no longer belongs to the O.P. The Old meter, which was installed in her premises, had a previous consumption reading of 7783 KWH, which is a sheer violation of the consumer rights as the service provider had collected charges for the new meter, but had installed an old, repaired and used meter. Had the new meter been installed by the O.P., there was no question of arising dispute regarding the consumption made by her. The reading of the old meter can be retrieved from the laboratory, but the O.P. has even failed to produce on record any report of the laboratory. The O.P. may be directed to produce the defective meter, so that its condition may be physically verified. In the alternative, the bill for the disputed period may be generated on the basis of the average of the reading recorded by the newly installed meter during a period of one year, as electricity consumption, during the summer & winter months, very largely varies. It has been prayed that incorrect counting of 528 days and the bill generated on the basis of fictitious & fabricated reading may be set aside and the O.P. be directed to issue the bill afresh on the basis of true meter reading.

 

5.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit, Ex. CW1, photocopies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Raj Kumar, UDC, Ex. O.P.-1, photocopies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.

 

6.                We have heard Sh. Narinder Kumar, attorney of the complainant, and the learned counsel for the O.P. and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

7.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. raised the objection that since the connection installed in the premises of the complainant is a non-residential supply connection for running a health centre, as such, the same being used for commercial purpose, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain & decide this complaint. In rebuttal, Sh. Narinder Kumar, who represented the complainant, submitted that the complainant is running the health centre (Gym) for earning her livelihood, in the premises where the connection in question is installed and the said fact has even been categorically mentioned in the complaint itself, therefore, the instant complaint filed by her is maintainable before this Forum. Since the complainant is using electricity from the said connection to run the health centre/gym for earning her livelihood, therefore, she is a consumer and the complaint filed by her is maintainable before this Forum and the objection raised by the learned counsel for the O.P. is not sustainable.

 

8.                Now coming to the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that the meter installed in the premises of the complainant on 5.3.2014 was replaced on 18.6.2015 as it got burnt. Since the actual reading of the replaced meter was not available, therefore, as per Regulation 21.5.2 (d) of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2014, issued a bill dated dated 20.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,65,860/-, out of which the complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. He further submitted that in the details of account of the complainant, Ex. OP5, the O.P. has specifically given a note to the effect that as per Regulation No. 21.5.2(d) of Supply Code the consumption charged 18777 units as per LDHF shall be subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the corresponding period of the succeeding year. Therefore, the O.P. cannot be said to be deficient in providing services and the complainant is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.65,860/- as raised through the bill dated 20.07.2015 and that the amount paid by her would be adjusted on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the corresponding period of the succeeding year. Sh. Narinder Kumar, attorney of the complainant submitted that as the actual reading before removal of the defective meter is not available, the complainant is ready to pay the bill for the disputed period of the basis of the average of the actual consumption recorded by the new meter during the succeeding year, therefore, the O.P. be directed not to recover the remaining amount of Rs.65,860/- from her, as she has already deposited a huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under protest. He further submitted that  the O.P. has raised the bill dated 20.07.2015 for the old meter w.e.f. 28.1.2014, whereas in its written version, it has admitted that old meter was installed in the premises of the complainant on 5.3.2014, therefore, the O.P. is entitled to raise the bill w.e.f. 5.3.2014 and not from 28.1.2014.

 

                   Regulation No. 21.5.2(d) of the Punjab State Electricity Regulations, 2014, which relates to defective/dead stop/burnt/stolen meters, reads as under:-

“Where the consumption for the previous months/period as referred in para (a) to (c) is not available, the consumer shall be tentatively billed on the basis of consumption assessed as para 4 of Annex. 8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the corresponding period of succeeding year.”

 

It may be stated that since the  meter installed initially in the premises of the complainant was found to be defective, and no reading was available with the O.P., therefore, as per Regulation, reproduced above, it had issued the bill on 20.07.2015, by applying LDH formula, as per para No. 4 of Annex. 8, for a sum of Rs.1,65,860/-, tentatively, subject to adjustment on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the corresponding period of the succeeding year. Since the O.P. has raised bill for the said tentative amount as per Regulation No. 21.5.2(d) of the the Punjab State Electricity Regulations, 2014, therefore, the complainant is bound to pay the same. Admittedly, she has already paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the said amount of Rs.1,65,860/-, as such, a sum of Rs.65,860/- is still due to be paid by her. It may be stated that the said amount of Rs.1,65,860/- is to be adjusted by the O.P., subsequently, in the amount found to be paid by the complainant, on the basis of the actual consumption recorded by the newly installed meter during the corresponding period of succeeding year.  The amount, if any, is found to have been paid by her, in excess than the amount actually found due, the same can be adjusted in the future bill(s) as per Regulation 21.6 of the Punjab State Electricity Regulations, 2014, which relates to recovery/refund of the charges in such cases. It may be stated that in para No. 1 on merits of the written version the O.P. has itself stated that the old meter was installed in the premises of the complainant on 5.3.2014, therefore, the O.P. is entitled to raise bill from her w.e.f. 5.3.2014 and not from 28.1.2014, as the bill dated 20.7.2015 was raised. So far as the grievance of the complainant regarding charging of a sum of Rs.1910/- vide receipt dated 18.6.2015, Ex. C9/Ex. OP-2, on account of burning of the meter is concerned, it may be stated that it is not even the case of the O.P. that the meter removed from the premises of the complainant got defective/burnt due to her negligence, therefore, as per Regulation 21.4.1 of the aforesaid Regulations, 2014, the O.P. was not entitled to charge the said amount from her, especially, in the absence of any report of the ME Lab to that effect. As such, the O.P. is liable to refund the said amount of Rs.1910/- to her.

9.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dispose of the instant complaint with the following directions to the parties:-

          i)       The complainant shall pay the remaining amount of              Rs.65,860/- still due from her on the basis of the bill              dated           20.7.2015 raised by the O.P., minus the amount                    of Rs.1910/-, which was illegally charged from her on               account of burnt meter, i.e. Rs.63,950/-, within 30                           days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this            order;

          ii)      The O.P. shall overhaul the account of the                                       complainant w.e.f. 5.3.2014 and not from 28.1.2014,            on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the            newly installed meter in the corresponding period of                    succeeding year and shall, accordingly, effect recovery           or adjust the amount, if any, found deposited in excess           than the amount due from her, in the future bill(s) to be                    raised upon her.

 

10.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 11.01.2016                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.