DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.352 of 03-08-2010 Decided on 25-11-2010
Bhagwan Dass son of Shri Khetta Ram, aged about 70 years, Dhobiana Basti, (Atta Chakki), Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through Chief Engineer/West, Bathinda. Senior XEN (Operation), Powercom, City Division, Bathinda. SDO/AE, Powercom, Civil Lines Sub Division, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.
Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.Rajan Singla, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Lovenish Garg, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the complainant has filed the present complaint with allegations against the opposite parties that he is running Atta Chakki to earn his livelihood. On 25.02.2008, Enforcement Staff of opposite parties had checked the meter of the complainant which was found OK. On 23.06.2008, the electricity meter of the complainant had been burnt and he approached the opposite parties and informed them regarding the burning of the meter. Sh. Kulwant Singh, JE and SDO Mr. Kansal checked the condition of meter of the complainant and found that the electricity meter was burnt completely. The opposite party No.3 ordered the complainant to deposit the cost of the meter and on 26.06.2008, the complainant deposited the cost of the meter with the opposite parties. The opposite parties had removed the burnt meter and electricity supply was given directly from the main supply line. Thereafter, the meter was sent to ME Lab by the opposite parties on 15.12.2008 and on checking the said meter, the opposite parties illegally and against facts alleged that there is a tampering of the seals of the meter. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued a provisional assessment notice for Rs.2,64,487/- for theft of energy. The complainant submitted objections against the said provisional assessment order before the Assessing Authority and they reduced the amount to Rs.1,02,601/- vide order dated 20.06.2009. Thereafter, the complainant challenged the said demand of Rs.1,02,801/- before the learned Appellate Authority under the Electricity Act, 2003 (ADC, Bathinda) vide Appeal No.1/Electricity Act dated 13.04.2009 who accepted the appeal of the complainant on 05.08.2009 and remanded the case to the Assessing Authority to re-calculate the amount. The opposite parties neither filed any appeal against the said order dated 05.08.2009 nor assessed/re-calculated any amount till date and they have refunded the amount of Rs.36,466/- (including interest) i.e. Rs.34,267/- which was deposited by the complainant vide memo No.106 dated 16.11.2009. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.21,570/- vide memo No.991 dated 27.07.2010 without making any re-calculation of amount which is illegal. The opposite parties had installed the new meter on 03.11.2008 i.e. after 130 days. The complainant demanded Rs.100/- per day from the opposite parties for non installing the electricity meter. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties have pleaded in its written statement that as per order dated 05.08.2009, the amount was refunded vide memo No.1806 dated 16.11.2009 to the complainant and as per the calculation, the amount of Rs.21,750/- has been refunded excess to the complainant which is liable to be recovered from him. The opposite parties further pleaded that only amount of Rs.14,896/- was to be refunded to the complainant but the opposite parties have refunded the whole amount. As such as stated earlier, the opposite parties have demanded a sum of Rs.21,750/- as per law. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that on 25.02.2008, Enforcement Staff of opposite parties had checked the meter of the complainant, the condition of the meter was OK. On 23.06.2008, the electricity meter of the complainant had been burnt. The complainant approached the opposite parties and informed them in writing a letter Ex.C-1. The opposite parties deputed Sh. Kulwant Singh, JE and SDO Mr. Kansal for taking necessary action and these two officials directed the complainant to deposit the cost of the meter to the tune of Rs.670/-. On 26.06.2008, the complainant deposited the cost of the meter as demanded by the opposite parties, which has to be replaced the meter within 5 days from the date of deposit of the said amount, but the opposite parties have installed the new meter on 03.11.2008 i.e. after 130 days and has violated its rules and regulations. On 15.12.2008, the meter was checked in ME Lab and issued a provisional order of assessment of Rs.2,64,487/-. The complainant filed his objections before the Appellate Authority and they partly accepted the objections of the complainant vide order dated 20.03.2010 and reduced the amount to Rs.1,02,801/- vide Ex.C-2. The complainant challenged the said demand before the learned Appellate Authority, (ADC, Bathinda) on 13.04.2009 and the Appellate Authority accepted the appeal and directed the opposite parties to re-calculate the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order Ex.C-3. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the opposite parties neither filed any appeal against the Appellate Authority, ADC, Bathinda nor re-calculated the amount till date and refunded 36,466/- vide memo No.1806 dated 16.11.2009 Ex.C-4. After eight months, the opposite parties have raised a demand of Rs.21,570/- vide memo No.991 dated 27.07.2010 on account of audit objections Ex.C-5. 6. The learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the opposite parties had directed Sh. Kulwant Singh, JE to visit the premises of the complainant who called Mr. Kansal, SDO, to check the condition of the meter. On visiting the premises of the complainant, they found that the electric meter had been burnt completely. The complainant deposited the cost of the meter on 26.06.2008 for installation of new meter. The opposite parties removed the burnt meter and electric supply was given directly from main supply. Thereafter, the meter was sent to ME Lab by the opposite parties on 15.12.2008 and on checking the said meter, the opposite parties found that there was tempering of the seals of the meter and provisional order of assessment for a sum of Rs.2,64,487/- was issued to the complainant for theft of energy. The complainant submitted the objections against the said provisional order of assessment before Appellate Authority who reduced the said amount to Rs.1,02,801/- vide order dated 20.03.2009. The complainant further challenged the said amount of Rs.1,02,801/- before the learned Appellate Authority under Electricity Act, 2003 vide appeal No.1 dated 13.04.2009 and the Appellate Authority vide his order dated 05.08.2009 accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Assessing Authority to re-calculate the said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The opposite parties have refunded the amount of Rs.36,466/- to the complainant and demanded Rs.21,570/- vide memo No.991 dated 27.07.2010. 7. As per regulation Nos. 36&37 of Assessment of Electricity charges in cases of Unauthorized use/theft Annexure-8, 2(b) Ex.R-5 which is reproduced as under:- “The consumption of electricity so computed will be charged for a presumptive period of twelve months preceding the date of detection of theft at two times the normal tariff rate. The period of 12 months may however, be suitably reduced if the Authorized Officer, for reasons to be recorded in writing is satisfied that theft of electricity has actually taken place for a lesser period.” The opposite parties have to refund the amount of Rs.14,496/- to the complainant but it has inadvertently refunded the whole amount to the complainant. So, it has raised a demand of Rs.21,570/- as per law, rules and regulation of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. As per regulation Nos.36&37 twice tariff is recoverable from the complainant but the department has calculated a single tariff and when the Audit Party found so, the complainant was issued the demand of Rs.21,570/- which has been refunded excess to him. The complainant has claimed Rs.100/- per day as there is delay of 130 days in installing the electric meter in the premises of the complainant. The complainant has placed on file Annexure-5, Punjab Govt. Gaz. July 27,2007 (SRVN 5, 1929 SAKA) compensation payable to consumer in case of violation of minimum standards of performance under the rule 3.2 replacement of meter – within 5 days – Rs.100/- for each day of default. As per order dated 05.08.2009 Ex.C-3 which is reproduced as under:- “As per the provision of Punjab State Electricity Regulation 2007, PSEB should compensate the consumer @Rs.100/- per day for the period the meter was not replaced beyond five days as per provision of regulation 26 (Annexure 5) and in this case the meter was replaced on 03.11.2008 after a period of 130 days from the date of meter-cost was deposited on 26.06.2008. Since neither both these issues are the subject matter of the appeal nor the appellant authority is competent to adjudicate these issues, therefore these issues are left in the hands of the Board. The appellant is directed that if he want to pursue his case on these issues, he can approach competent authority to get the appropriate relief on this account.” The complainant had to file Civil Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court if he was not satisfied by the order passed on 05.08.2009 by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda (Appellate Authority). The consumer fora is not the appellate authority, if he was satisfied then he has to make representation to the opposite parties i.e. Board as adviced in the order dated 05.08.2009. Moreover, the complainant has availed one remedy now he is barred to file the present complaint. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 25.11.2010 President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
