DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.287 of 19-07-2013

Decided on 21-11-2013

The Nathpura Multipurpose Co-operative Agriculture Sewa Sabha Ltd., Village Nathpura (Block Nathana), Distt. Bathinda, through representative Iqbal Singh Secretary.

........Complainant

Versus

The Assistant Executive Engineer (Distribution), Sub Division, PSPCL, Nathana.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Jai Gopal Goyal, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite party: Sh.J.D Nayyar, counsel for opposite party.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act') by the complainant. The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant society is registered multipurpose co-operative agricultural society doing the work of Atta Chaki for the self employment to earn livelihood to support their families and Sh.Iqbal Singh is duly authorized representative of his society, hence the present complaint has been filed through Sh.Iqbal Singh secretary of the complainant society. The complainant society is having electricity account bearing No.B91BP660038M, wherein the abovesaid electricity connection is installed having meter bearing No.1129750 with connected load of 15 KW. The complainant society received the bill for the period from 14.4.2012 to 10.6.2012 amounting to Rs.80,270/- and accordingly presented the said bill to the office of the opposite party specifically stating that the said bill is excessive inflated and exorbitant as such is not recoverable but the officers of the opposite party stated that the matter shall be considered later on. The complainant society again received the bill for the period from 10.4.2013 to 10.5.2013 amounting to Rs.39,610/- and accordingly presented the said bill to the office of the opposite party specifically stating that the bill is excessive inflated and exorbitant as such is not recoverable but the officers of the opposite party stated that the matter shall be considered later on but instead of investigating the matter of excess billing, they threatened the complainant to disconnect the abovesaid electricity connection on account of non-payment. The complainant society again received the bill for the period from 10.5.2013 to 10.6.2013 amounting to Rs.51,090/- and accordingly presented the said bill to the office of the opposite party specifically stating that the said bill is excessive inflated and exorbitant as such is not recoverable but the officers of the opposite party stated that the matter shall be considered later on but the opposite party got deposited Rs.25,100/- out of the said bill from the complainant under threat. The officials of the opposite party got deposited the previous bill that were not recoverable being issued not on the basis of actual consumption of the electricity. The complainant has also moved an application dated 12.7.2012 for challenging the bills. The complainant society further alleged that the meter was never removed from the site and never sent to the ME lab for testing its internal mechanism, though it was the duty of the opposite party to install the correct meter to record its actual consumption and in case its working is not correct that is slow or fast, only Electrical Inspector appointed by the Government of India can decide the matter and the opposite party cannot issue any bill in excess then the actual consumption of the electricity recorded by the meter or bill on the average basis. The complainant submitted detailed application dated 5.7.2013 to the office of the opposite party to refund the amount recovered in excess and to send the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector and not to recover the remaining amount of Rs.26,090/- on the basis of bill No.11542 and to get the meter in question for sending the same to the ME lab for testing and to refund the amount with interest but to no effect. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite party to refund Rs.80,270/-, Rs.39,610/-, Rs.25,100/- out of the bills for the period from 14.4.2012 to 10.6.2012; 10.4.2013 to 10.5.2013 and 10.5.2013 to 10.6.2013 after adjusting the actual consumption charged recorded on the meter together; to get the meter tested from ME lab; to appoint Chief Electrical Inspector to decide the controversy of power factor and to adjudge the internal working of the meter and to access the charges during the abovesaid controversial period of consumption; not to recover the balance amount of Rs.26,090/- out of the bill No.11542 and to install the correct meter at his premises alongwith cost and compensation or to give any other additional, alternative or consequential relief to him.

2. Notice has been sent to the opposite party and the opposite party after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that the bills has been issued as per rules. A power factor surcharge of Rs.29,143/- has been added in this amount which is to be charged in case the power factor calculates to less than 0.88. The power factor is calculated by dividing KWH reading with KVAH reading. A detailed chart showing the period, KWH reading, KVAH reading, the power factor, the bill amount, the power factor surcharge, the total bill amount and surcharge payment detail etc. The issuance of the bill and amount demanded therein is correct. The amount has been charged on the basis of the actual consumption included PF surcharge. The connection holder has voluntarily deposited the said amount. The entire demand has been raised as per the rules. It was the complainant who had to apply for getting the meter tested in the ME lab in case he had any complication regarding the same. Since there is no representation in this regard, as such there was no reason for the opposite party to remove the meter for testing. The amount has been charged on the basis of the actual consumption, as such there is no need to refer the matter to Electrical Inspector as per rules. The connection holder is not entitled for any refund or interest as alleged by him. In case the complainant wants to get the meter tested from the ME lab, he needs to deposit the requisite fees and other requisite formalities required regarding the same.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admittedly, the complainant society is holding electricity account bearing No.B91BP660038M, meter bearing No.1129750 with connected load of 15 KW.

6. The submission of the learned counsel of the complainant society is that the complainant society is doing the work of Atta Chaki for the self employment to earn livelihood to support their families and Sh.Iqbal Singh is duly authorized representative of his society. The complainant society received the bill for the period from 14.4.2012 to 10.6.2012 for the amount of Rs.80,270/-; the bill for the period from 10.4.2013 to 10.5.2013 for the amount of Rs.39,610/- and the bill for the period from 10.5.2013 to 10.6.2013 for the amount of Rs.51,090/-. At the time of receiving the aforesaid 3 bills, the complainant has approached the office of the opposite party and stated that the said bills are excessive inflated and exorbitant as such are not recoverable but the officers of the opposite party under threat got deposited Rs.25,100/- out of the third bill from him instead of investigating the matter of the excess billing. The complainant has also moved an application dated 12.7.2012 for challenging the bills. The other submission of the learned counsel of the complainant is that the meter of the complainant was never removed from the site and never sent to the ME lab for testing its internal mechanism as it was the duty of the opposite party to install the correct meter to record its actual consumption and in case its working is not correct that is slow or fast, only Electrical Inspector appointed by the Government of India can decide the matter and the opposite party cannot issue any bill in excess then the actual consumption of the electricity recorded by the meter or bill on the average basis. The complainant submitted detailed application dated 5.7.2013 to the office of the opposite party to refund the amount recovered in excess and to send the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector and not to recover the remaining amount of Rs.26,090/- on the basis of bill No.11542 and to get the meter in question for sending the same to ME lab for testing and to refund the amount with interest but nothing has been done by the opposite party.

7. On the other hand the submission of the learned counsel of the opposite party is that the complainant society has filed the present complaint alleging the refund of Rs.80,270/-, Rs.39,610/-, Rs.25,100/- out of the bills for the period of 14.4.2012 to 10.6.2012; 10.4.2013 to 10.5.2013 and 10.5.2013 to 10.6.2013 after adjusting the actual consumption charged recorded on the meter together with interest; Rs.25,000/- on account of alleged harassment for getting the meter tested from ME lab, appointment of Chief Electrical Inspector, non recovery of Rs.26,090/- out of the bill No.11542 to install the correct meter at his premises etc. The bills has been issued as per rules. A power factor surcharge of Rs.29,143/- has been added in this amount which is to be charged in case the power factor calculates to less than 0.88. The power factor is calculated by dividing KWH reading with KVAH reading. Ex.OP1/2, a detailed chart showing the period, KWH reading, KVAH reading, the power factor, the bill amount, the power factor surcharge, the total bill amount and surcharge payment detail etc. The complainant has challenged the power factor surcharge and the same is leviable as per the rules. There is no need to change the meter, or for getting the same checked from the ME lab or the Chief Electrical Inspector as there is no dispute regarding the slow or fast running of the meter. The amount has been charged on the basis of the actual consumption included PF surcharge.

8. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the complainant has moved an application dated 12.7.2012, Ex.C3, in which he has specifically mentioned that 'the meter reading is false in bill dated 28.6.2012, due to which the power factor is shown as 0.49 and surcharge of Rs.29,143/- is levied, whereas as all capacitors/connections of his connection are correct. Therefore he wants to challenge the meter, hence he is ready to pay the requisite fee for sending the meter to ME lab for its checking'. The complainant submitted that during the pendency of the complaint, the opposite party removed the meter from his premises and sent it for testing in ME lab but the opposite party has not produced any site report or ME lab meter test report. In the written statement the opposite party has pleaded that the meter is not required to be tested from ME lab since the meter is alleged to be correct one nor the complainant deposited any sum/fee for testing the meter nor fulfilled the required formalities in this regard. During the pendency of this complaint, the opposite party has removed the meter and sent it for testing in ME lab which are sufficient to prove that the bills sent to the complainant are excessive, inflated, exorbitant, not issued on the actual consumption of the electricity.

9. As per Ex.OP1/1, Jagjit Singh, AEE, PSPCL Sub Division Nathana in his affidavit Ex.OP1/1 in para No.11 has deposed that 'the bill has been issued as per the rules. It is pertinent to mention that a power factor surcharge of Rs.29,143/- has been added in this amount which is to be charged in case the power factor calculates less than 0.88. The power factor is calculated by diving KWH reading with KVAH reading....'. The opposite party has tendered in its evidence Ex.OP1/2, the details of power factors for the period from 5/12 to 7/2013. As per the version of the opposite party the power factor has been charged where the power factor calculation is less than 0.88. A perusal of Ex.OP1/2 shows that the status of the meter of the complainant remained throughout 'O' and on 6/2013 the meter status is shown as 'C' which means the meter has been changed which support the version of the complainant that during the pendency of the complaint the meter has been removed and sent to ME lab. The power factor has been charged as per Electricity Instructions Manual SIII.9 which is reproduced hereunder:-

“SIII.9 Power factor surcharge/incentives:-

All new consumers under this schedule will be provided with meter/metering equipment to measure monthly average power factor and power factor rebates/surcharges would be applicable in the same manner as prescribed above.

Existing SP consumers as on 6.11.2009 shall be given option either to continue under the existing provisions specified above or opt for installation of meter/metering equipment to measure the monthly average power factor, thereafter the incentive/penalty would be applicable.

The PSPCL within a period of 18 months (w.e.f. 1.1.2010) will take necessary steps to install meter/metering equipment on the premises of those consumers who opt to come under this scheme to measure monthly average power factor after which the SP consumers will be allowed a rebate @ 0.25% on the bill amount for each 0.01 rise in power factor above threshold limit of 0.88. A power factor surcharge would be leviable @ 1% of the bill amount for each 0.01 fall in the power below 0.88. The rate of surcharge will be 2% of the bill amount for each 0.01 fall in power factor below 0.80. However, till meters for measuring average power factor are installed the existing consumers will be governed by the present provisions (SIII.8). The bill amount will mean the consumption charges including demand charges, if any, in a month but not the bill amount payable on monthly minimum charges.”

10. If for the arguments sake if it is believed that on various occasions the meter of the complainant was showing the power factor less than 0.88 and the bill has been sent according to that, then why the opposite party during the pendency of this complaint, has sent the meter to ME lab for testing. From the very beginning the complainant is requesting the opposite party to send his meter to ME lab as he has been getting the bills on the exorbitant side. Thus to fill the lacuna, the opposite party has sent the meter to ME lab, thus the version of the opposite party is contradictory to the reply filed by it. Moreover as per rule SIII.9 the amount of power factor is to be charged by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited within a period of 18 months (w.e.f. 1.1.2010) and will take necessary steps to install meter/metering equipment on the premises of those consumers who opt to come under this scheme to measure monthly average power factor after which the SP consumers will be allowed a rebate @ 0.25% on the bill amount for each 0.01 rise in power factor above threshold limit of 0.88. A power factor surcharge would be leviable @ 1% of the bill amount for each 0.01 fall in the power below 0.88. The rate of surcharge will be 2% of the bill amount for each 0.01 fall in power factor below 0.80. However, till meters for measuring average power factor are installed the existing consumers will be governed by the present provisions (SIII.8). As per Electricity Instructions Manual SIII.8:-

“SIII.8 Capacitor Surcharge:

All consumers shall be required to install Shunt Capacitors having suitable KVAR capacity as prescribed in Conditions of Supply of the PSPCL. No connection shall be released without installation of Shunt Capacitors of requisite capacity.

In case Shunt Capacitor(s) is/are found to be missing or inoperative or damaged, a 15 days notice shall be issued to the consumer for rectification of the defect and setting right the same. In case the defective capacitor(s) is/are not replaced/rectified within 15 days of the issue of notice, a surcharge @ 20% on bill amount shall be levied for the preceding two months and it shall continue to be levied till the defective capacitor(s) is/are replaced/rectified to the satisfaction of the PSPCL. In case the capacitor(s) is/are found to be of inadequate rating, the capacitor surcharge shall be levied on prorate basis.”

The opposite party has nowhere pleaded that Shunt Capacitors are installed in the premises of the complainant became defective or the complainant has been given the option either to continue under the existing provisions specified above or opt for installation of meter/metering equipment to measure the monthly average power factor.

11. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file it is clear that the opposite party has failed to send the bill on the actual consumption rather has sent as per SIII.9 and no notice has been given to the complainant regarding this. Moreover during the pendency of this complaint the meter has been changed and sent to ME lab for checking without getting deposit the requisite amount from the complainant. As per Ex.C12, Para No.11 that vide memo No.1400 dated 4.8.2013 the meter has been sent to ME lab but has not supplied the report of ME lab to the complainant, not produced the same before this Forum, wherein the meter was not showing the reading of the consumption on the meter display was having some inherent manufacturing defect therein.

12. Thus in view of what has been discussed above the opposite party has sent the bills to the complainant on the exorbitant side as the same are not as per the actual consumption of the complainant, moreover the act of the opposite party of sending the meter to ME lab during the pendency of this complaint amounts to deficiency in service.

13. Thus this complaint is accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to overhaul the account of the complainant and send the bill on the actual consumption basis to him after deducting the amount from the said bill that has already been deposited by him.

14. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

15. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum

21-11-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member