BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

            Complaint  No.12 of 2018

                                                                  Date of Instt. 03.01.2018

                                                                  Date of Decision: 02.03.2021

H.S. Bhalla age 67 years, S/o N.S. Bhalla, R/o 53-C, Ravinder Nagar, Mithapur Road, Jalandhar (formerly known 53 Nishat Park, Jalandhar) Mobile No.9779506294, 98140-19243.

….......Complainant

Versus

1. Sub Divisional Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Model Town, Jalandhar

     2.   Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ,The Mall, Patiala.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: 

Sh. Kuljit Singh, President

Smt. Jyotsna, Member

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                       :         In person.

For OPs                                   :         Sh.K L Dua, Advocate

Order

Kuljit Singh, President

1.           The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein complainant averred that he is consumer of electric connection bearing N.3002972165, (Old No.J72GT470351W) for domestic use issued by OP-1 and said meter is installed in a box outside the house of complainant.  OP-1 sent bill dated 31.10.2017 for Rs.26960/- for the period from 27.09.2017 to 31.10.2017 (34 days) showing consumption 3518 units which is absolutely incorrect and same is based on surmises and conjectures and not binding upon the complainant. He did not consume said units. In view to save the connection from disconnection, he deposited with OP-1 the sum of Rs.5400/- as part payment under protest on 01.11.2017.  When he asked the reason for issuing bill of such huge amount, the OP-1 told him that as per application of complainant new meter was changed on 08.07.2017.  In August 2017, he reported to OP-1 that new meter which was changed was running fast, so it should be checked and may be replaced. On receipt of application from him, the OP-1 directed to JE on 01.11.2017 to check and report for meter.  Then concerned JE checked the meter at site and reported that “the meter appeared jumped” and further told the complainant to deposit challenge fee for necessary action.  From report of JE of OP-1, it is clear that reading of meter might had jumped to high reading which made the consumption 3518 whereas the fact is that he never consumed said unit in 34 days.  On 01.11.2017, he deposited challenge fee and accordingly on same day, the OP-1 issued demand note for device replacement order meter fast.  After depositing challenge fee, the OP-1 removed meter and sent it to ME lab for checking for which the complainant requested to OP-1 to check the meter in his presence.  The said meter is still lying with OP-1 for check up but OP-1 neither called him to check meter in his presence nor checked meter in lab.  Consumption of complainant’s house as per previous bills from November 2016 to October 2017 always remained between 642 units to 975 units from 24 to 35 days. But the present bill of November 2017 shown 3518 units in 34 days for Rs.26960/- which is wrong.  He requested the OP-1 to correct the bill but OP-1 adamant to recover said huge amount.  Lastly prayer has been made that OP be directed to correct the bill and check the removed meter in his presence and pay Rs.2000/- as litigation cost and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment.
2.           Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs who appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arisen to complainant; No amount has been raised from complainant after challenging of meter and bill in respect of bill in question; complainant did not pay the previous bills and is in arrears; the challenged meter is yet to be checked in ME Lab and before said checking, complainant has filed this complaint. Complaint is premature; complainant is barred by his act and conduct from filing false complaint; complainant has not made payments of regular electricity consumption bills, after filing present complaint as such the connection is liable to be disconnected; complaint is misuse of process of this Commission.  Complaint is liable to dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. On merits, installation of connection is admitted. It is also admitted that OP-1 sent bill dated 31.10.2017 for Rs.26960/- for period from 27.09.2017 to 31.10.2017 (34 days) showing consumption 3518 units. But it is denied that said bill is wrong.  The bill is legal and valid and has been sent in respect of use of energy by complainant and bound to pay the same.  It is also admitted that complainant deposited Rs.5400/- as part payment of bill dated 31.10.2017.  It is also admitted that new meter was changed on 08.07.2017 but it denied that in August 2017, complainant reported the OP-1 that new meter was running fast.  The application was moved by complainant on 01.11.2017 and on the application, it marked to JE and directed to report.  It is also admitted that JE checked the meter and report made by JE but from report of the JE it cannot be considered/proved that the meter might had jumped to high reading which made the consumption 3518.  It is also admitted that complainant deposited challenge fee on 01.11.2017 and on deposit of said fee, OP-1 issued demand notice for device replacement order meter fast. It is admitted that meter removed by OP-1 for checking the same ME Lab and it also admitted that complainant requested that the meter should be checked in his presence.  Neither the meter has been checked nor it has been declared OK or defective.  Nothing has been changed on account of challenged meter.  The OP has no enemity with complainant.  He should have waited.  The meter would be checked in his presence in ME Lab.  It is admitted that meter has installed outside the premises of complainant but on that account only OP is responsible for any kind of defect, jump or fast running and complainant is no responsible in that regard.  The same depends upon the result of ME Lab.  It is denied that previous bills of complainant from November 2016 to Oct. 2017 always remained between 642 units to 975 units from 24 to 35 days.  It is denied that meter containing manufacturing defect.  Other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
3.           In order to prove their respective version, the counsel for the parties produced on the file his respective evidence.
4.           We have heard the arguments of the parties and also gone through case file carefully.
5.           Complainant argued that complainant has a domestic electric connection and he is the consumer of Ops. He is regularly paying all the electricity bills to Ops and nothing is due as electricity charges. It is contended that that complainant received a bill issued on 31.10.2017 for Rs.26960/-, which is illegal. He did not consume said units. In view to save the connection from disconnection, he deposited with OP-1 the sum of Rs.5400/- as part payment under protest on 01.11.2017.  When he asked the reason for issuing bill of such huge amount, the OP-1 told him that as per application of complainant new meter was changed on 08.07.2017.  In August 2017, he reported to OP-1 that new meter which was changed was running fast, so it should be checked and may be replaced. On receipt of application from him, the OP-1 directed to JE on 01.11.2017 to check and report for meter.  Then concerned JE checked the meter at site and reported that “the meter appeared jumped” and further told the complainant to deposit challenge fee for necessary action.  From report of JE of OP-1, it is clear that reading of meter might had jumped to high reading which made the consumption 3518 whereas the fact is that he never consumed said unit in 34 days.  On 01.11.2017, he deposited challenge fee and accordingly on same day, the OP-1 issued demand note for device replacement order meter fast.  After depositing challenge fee, the OP-1 removed meter and sent it to ME lab for checking for which the complainant requested to OP-1 to check the meter in his presence.  The said meter is still lying with OP-1 for check up but OP-1 neither called him to check meter in his presence nor checked meter in lab.  Consumption of complainant’s house as per previous bills from November 2016 to October 2017 always remained between 642 units to 975 units from 24 to 35 days. But the present bill of November 2017 shown 3518 units in 34 days for Rs.26960/- which is wrong.  He requested the OP-1 to correct the bill but OP-1 adamant to recover said huge amount.  He has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the said. Hence, this complaint.
6.           Ld. Counsel for Ops argued before the Commission that   bill for 31.10.2017 was issued to complainant is correct as per his consumption. As per additional evidence produced on record, meter of complainant was changed and was sent to ME Lab, for checking, where meter found OK and this bill was correctly issued and Ops have every right to recover the same. All the amount is charged as per rules and regulations and it is denied that any amount has been charged illegally. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.
7.           From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that amount of bill raised by Ops is illegal and unlawful and is in excess. On the other hand Ops assert that they have charged amount as per rules and regulations. They argued that the old meter of complainant was defective and replaced with new meter. In checking at M E Lab, it is found that the meter is OK but it is damaged. So, as per report of M E Lab, he is liable to the bill in dispute.  Complainant argued that Ops wrongly and illegally charged said amount which is due to jumping of electric meter.  They wrongly showed excess reading in the alleged M E Lab Report. As per their own rules and regulations of PSPCL ltd, every defective meter required to removed shall be packed and sealed in the presence of consumer and further checking of the meter in the M E Lab should be in the presence of consumer and prior notice before checking in the M E Lab should be issued to consumer procure his presence. The Ops never packed and sealed the meter in question in the presence of complainant and no notice regarding checking in M E Lab was ever issued to complainant. No copy of checking report is ever supplied to complainant, which is a violation of their own rules and regulations. The relevant regulations of PSPCL are reproduced as hereunder:

As per regulations no.55. Replacement of Meters/Metering Equipment : 55.1 Single Phase Electromechanical Meters :   E/M Meters removed from the consumer premises on replacement with the electronic meters shall be returned to M E Labs without any other formality and ME Labs will not carry out any checking/testing of these meters except in case of disputed meters. In case of disputed meters removed under code – G, M & R (glass broken, meter burnt & ME seals broken) and in cases where there is sufficient evidence of theft /tampering etc at the time of removal, the JE concerned shall record his observation on the MCO itself and such meters shall be packed and sealed in the presence of consumers for further checking in M E Labs in his presence.

Further as per regulation no. 21.4 (d) : In case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the Licensee’s laboratory, the consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing atleast seven days in advance. The signature of the consumer, or his authorized representative, if present would be obtained on the Test Result Sheet and a copy thereof supplied to consumer.

8.           It is admitted that at the time of change of meter, the meter was never sealed or checked in the presence of complainant or his representative. Further, this meter was never checked or opened in the presence of complainant or his representatives in M E Lab. Even no notice or intimation of any kind regarding the checking of his meter in M E Lab, was given to complainant. No opportunity to get checked the meter in the presence of complainant or his representatives or to be heard was given to complainant. In these circumstances, we cannot rely upon the report of ME Lab, which is prepared by Ops themselves in the absence of complainant arbitrarily being a monopoly concern. The OPs have failed to produce any evidence or document which proves that they issued or supplied the ME lab report to complainant.

9.                Therefore, from the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Ops have not followed the proper procedure to check the meter in ME lab in present of complainant despite his request which admitted by Ops as per their own regulations which amounts to deficiency in service. We are fully convinced with the arguments and case law produced by complainant and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to withdraw the demand for amount of Rs.26,960/-charged by them. OPs are further directed to adjust the amount of already deposited, if any, by complainant with OPs in compliance of the order dated 08.01.2018 passed by this Commission in subsequent bills. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

2^nd Day of March 2021                             

(Kuljit Singh)

President

(Jyotsna)

Member