BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH ========== Complaint Case No: 73 of 2010 Date of Institution : 05.02.2010 Date of Decision : 16.05.2011 M.L.Bansal s/o Sh.Ram Partap Bansal, Resident of House No.1052, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1] Superintending Engineer, Electricity ‘OP’, Circle Sector 9, U.T., Chandigarh. 2] Executive Engineer, Electricity ‘OP’, Division No.3, Sector 19, U.T., Chandigarh. 3] Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity ‘OP’, Sub Division No.3, Sector 18-A, U.T., Chandigarh. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued by: None for the complainant. Sh.Jatinder Singh, G.P. for the OPs. PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER 1] The instant complaint has been filed by Sh.M.L.Bansal against the OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is a Senior Citizen and owner of House NO.1052, Sector 18-c, Chandigarh. He had got an electricity connection installed in his house in the year 1962-63. The load of the connection was enhanced in the year 2005 and the meter was changed from Single Phase to Three Phase. Till July, 2008 there was never any dispute between the parties with regard to consumption and paying of electricity bills. Similarly, the complainant received a bill for the period 12.7.2008 to 12.9.2008 showing consumption of 12954 units. Accordingly, a bill dated 3.10.2008 had been issued for Rs.38,835/-. Shocked to receive the bill, the complainant challenged it by depositing the necessary fee of Rs.450/- on 6.10.2008 along with an application for correction. A check meter was installed by OP-3 to check the defect. It was found from the check meter that the old meter installed was running slow by 67.63%. Not satisfied with the report of the check meter, OP-3 installed another check meter on 31.10.2008. This meter did not work as it showed ‘Dead Stop’ and was removed on 8.11.2008. When 3rd check meter was installed, the readings from that meter showed that the old meter was running 7.3% slow. Hence, as per the complainant, none of the check meters of the OPs were giving any satisfactory results, but it is clear that there was a defect in the old meter. When the officials of OP-3 checked the meter, they found both seals intact and meter in working order as per report dated 20.11.2008 (Ann.C-5). The complainant then moved an application on 27.10.2008 and 9.12.2008 requesting OP-3 to send the meter to the laboratory for verification. The old meter was thus removed on 16.12.2008, and sent for verification. A new meter was installed in its place. The complainant has emphasized that on the date of meter change, notings were mentioned in the OPs register about the readings of the old meter. However, additions were made in the blank spaces later on. The complainant has also alleged that in the blank spaces also, it was later added that “Meter was checked thoroughly after removal from site and found its number plate is free and the reading could not be pinpointed.” This information was obtained by the complainant under Right to Information Act on 9.9.2009. The complainant thereafter made a number of oral as well as written requests to the OP-3 for settlement of wrong bill issued. The complainant asked the OPs to refer the matter to Disputes Settlement Committee. However, OPs sent the electricity meter to M & P Laboratory for testing and asked the complainant to be present in the laboratory for testing of meter. The report of the laboratory has been annexed at Ann.C-12 and intimation in that regard has been annexed as Ann.C-13. As per the report, it was found that the meter was tampered by breaking open the right side resulting in accessibility to two number points. Hence, a sum of Rs.7156/- was added in the next electricity bill of the complainant towards compensation charged due to tampering of meter. As per the complainant, he had never tampered with the meter, and hence made a representation to OP-1 for redressal of his grievance. A copy of the representation is at Ann.C-14. OP-1 directed the complainant to deposit 50% of the disputed bill i.e. Rs.19,148/-. The complainant complied with the same. Thereafter, OP-1 referred the matter to Disputes Redressal Committee. The minutes of Disputes Redressal Committee has been annexed at Ann.C-15. The Committee after its meeting held on 30.9.2009 was of the view that the meter has been tempered to obstruct the registering of actual consumption of electricity and the damage to the meter was intentional and not accidental, hence the appeal of the complainant dismissed. Contenting that the order of the Disputes Redressal committee was illegal, wrong, arbitrary and untenable in the eyes of law, the complainant has filed the instant complaint alleging that the wrong bill of Rs.38,835/- should not be made payable and also further penalty of R.7156/- is illegal. The complainant was further aggrieved when he was asked to deposit Rs.1783/- as average bill for the period 12.11.2008 to 16.12.2008 during the period when the meter was defective. The complainant has made a prayer for withdrawal of the impugned bill and penalty. He has also prayed for compensation and interest on the payment made against the claim. 2] After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the Ops. During the pendency of the case, the complainant also moved an application for stay of operation of the bill dated 3.2.2010 of which recovery of Rs.32,176/- on account of arrears in pursuance of Ann.C-1 & C-13 had been levied. Considering the application, this Forum was pleased to grant stay vide order dated 23.2.2010 for recovery of the dispute amount of Rs.32,176/- subject to the complainant paying current bill regularly. The stay still continues. 3] After receipt of notice all the OPs filed a joint reply. In the preliminary submission the OPs have admitted the installation of parallel meters at the premises of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint. The OPs have further added that when the meter was sent to the laboratory for testing, the M & P laboratory report says that the meter was found tampered with by breaking of its right side. The complainant refused to sign the laboratory report. Out of the total disputed amount of Rs.38,835/- the complainant paid only Rs.19,418/-. The remaining amount of Rs.19.417/- with passage of time became Rs.32,176/- on account of levy of surcharge due to non-payment of the defaulted amount. The matter was also referred to the Disputes Redressal Committee at the request of the complainant. After deliberations and going through the record, the members of the committee were also of the view that the meter had been tampered with to obstruct the reading of actual consumption of the electricity. The operative part of the decision has been reproduced by the OP and is as under:- “…This has been very clearly defined in the above said judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court that provision of 26 of Electricity Act, 1910, is not applicable if meter is tempered with and the supply line is manipulating and body seal of meter is broken. However, the provision is applicable when the meter is faulty due to some defect and not registering the actual consumption of electricity. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and meter being tempered and appeal of the applicable is hereby dismissed. Copy of the decision be sent to the parties free of cost.” On merits, the OPs after admitting the factual position and relying on the orders of the Disputes Redressal Committee, have prayed that the complaint be dismissed as being devoid of merit. 4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5] The case was fixed for 9.5.2011 for hearing arguments of both parties. As none appeared on behalf of the complainant on that day i.e. 9.5.2011 when the case was fixed for arguments, we therefore proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date) even in absence of the complainant. 6] We have heard the ld.Govt. Pleader for the OPs and perused the record on file. 7] At the time of arguments, the ld.G.P. for the OPs and the Officials of Electricity Department have submitted that on finding the meter faulty, they had changed the meter of the complainant and sent the faulty meter for inspection to the M & P Laboratory. The findings of the laboratory have already been mentioned above. Suffice to say that the meter was found defective and tampered with. The complainant had thus been asked to make payment of Rs.32,176/- along with penalty of Rs.7156/-. Not satisfied with this action of the OPs, the complainant had made a representation for referring the matter to the Disputes Settlement Committee. The Committing after deliberating on the issue also arrived at the conclusion that the meter had been tampered with and the complainant was liable to make payment of the bill amount along with penalty. 8] The relevant bills with regard to the complete period have been placed on record by the parties and we do not find any arbitrariness in any of the bills. Otherwise also, the government M & P Laboratory has found the meter to be tempered with and we have no cause to disbelieve the report of the laboratory. 9] In view of the above observations, in our opinion that the complaint does not hold any merit or substance. The complaint is therefore dismissed. The stay order passed on 23.2.2010 also stands vacated. No order as to costs. 10] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, the file be consigned to the record room. Announced 16.05.2011 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER
(MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
