| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 216 of 14-08-2019 Decided on : 29-11-2021 Harvinder Singh, aged about 50 years S/o Jagjit Singh R/o H. No. 465, Phase-1, Model Town, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala. Sr. Executive Engineer, PSPCL City Distribution Division, Bathinda. (deleted vide order dated 28-8-2019) The Assistant Engineer, PSPCL Commercial-I/ Disbtribution Sub Division, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Sohan Singh, Advocate. For opposite parties : OP No. 2 deleted Sh. H S Sidhu, Ops No. 1 & 3 ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Harwinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.., & another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is holding a domestic electricity connection No. B-12GT120543 bearing account No. 3004598260 with sanctioned load of 19.96 KW. The complainant abides by rules, regulations and instructions of opposite parties and depositing his actual consumption bills regularly. It is alleged that on 2.7.2017, the opposite parties noted the meter status as "R" means thereby that it was burnt. Its reading was noted as 40592. As per standard of performance, the opposite parties had to change or replace the burnt meter within 10 working days but it was not changed for 8 months i.e. for 240 days. The opposite parties did not even investigate the matter within 30 days which is mondatory as per Req. 21.4.1 of Supply code. It is also alleged that as per record of opposite parties meter was changed on 1.3.2018, but the changed meter was also faulty and the reading was not correct. The reading of further months i.e. from 3/2018 to 11/2018 were also inconsistent (I code) means that these readings/consumptions do not match with previous readings. It is further alleged that main trouble started from 6/2018. The readings of the meter and consumption was 281 units on 29-3-2018, 15 units on 1-5-2018, 3302 units on 1-6-2018, 5680 units on 8-7-2018, (-) 607 units on 7-8-2018, 1654 units on 3-9-2018, 14075 units on 3-10-2018, 1146 units on 3-11-2018 & 303 units on 23-11-2018. As per complainant bill issued on 8-7-2018 was on wrong basis as reading was not taken and in bill dated 3-10-18 there was 2500% increase. Since the meter code was C in the bill dated 23-11-2018, the meter was changed and it was challenged. The complainant alleged that above data prima facie clear that there was no consistency and huge variation in consumption and that the opposite party started raising faulty consumption bill from 6/18 onward i.e. 6/18 for Rs. 29,384/-, 20-7-2018 for Rs. 50504/-, 3-10-2018 for Rs 1,12,566/-. It is also alleged that as per history of payments(debit /credit) it seems that after the meter challenged on 4.10.2018, the opposite parties started charging various amounts through manual postings over and above the bills which were as under : Date | Amount | Date | Amount | 19/10/18 | 150 | 03/11/18 | 158 | 17/11/18 | 150 | 20/11/18 | 222 | 26/12/18 | 222 | 14/01/19 | 249 | 22/01/19 | 222 | 28/01/19 | 150 | 28/01/19 | 320 | 01/02/19 | 202 | 26/02/19 | 220 | 28/02/19 | 320 | 05/03/19 | 269 | 11/03/19 | 113 | 12/07/19 | 17 | 25/03/19 | 150 | 26/03/19 | 141 | 28/03/19 | 220 | 30/03/19 | 320 | 04/04/19 | 269 | 15/04/19 | 141 | 25/04/19 | 141 | 29/04/19 | 140 | 29/04/19 | 320 | 30/04/19 | 15 | 20/04/19 | 175 | 04/05/19 | 269 | 25/05/19 | 141 | 29/05/19 | 220 | 28/04/19 | 284 | 28/05/19 | 449 | 29/05/19 | 320 | 30/05/19 | 175 | 03/06/19 | 269 | 13/06/19 | 391 | 24/06/19 | 141 | 26/06/19 | 320 | 28/06/19 | 150 | 27/06/19 | 449 | 27/06/19 | 284 | 28/06/19 | 399 | 28/06/19 | 320 | 29/06/19 | 175 | 03/07/19 | 269 | 15/07/19 | 543 | 24/07/19 | 141 | 26/07/19 | 220 | 27/07/19 | 449 | 27/07/19 | 284 | 28/07/19 | 399 | 28/07/19 | 320 | 29/07/19 | 150 | 29/07/19 | 13.5 | 29/07/19 | 13.5 | 29/07/19 | 175 | 30/07/19 | 544 | 02/08/19 | 269 | | | | | Total : | 13473/- |
It is further alleged that again the meter was challenged on 4.10.2018 but it was changed on 23.11.2018 i.e. after 50 days whereas it was to be changed within 10 days.The opposite party did not intimate any result of challenged meter and has also not called the complainant in the M.E.Lab for joint checking which is mandatory as per instructions of opposite party thus the opposite party has violated there own rules 21.3.6 (d). The complainant further alleged that the disappointed by the lethargic attitude of opposite parties as they were not addressing his grievance, the complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- on 18.2.2019 and again Rs.50,000/- on 7.5.2019, but even then a huge balance is being shown in the bills till date and surcharge on every bill was also being charged by them. On 20.8.2019 the opposite party got deposited only bill amount, but even then a huge amount of Rs.1,91,212/- is shown against the complainant. It is also alleged that as per 51.1. of section III of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual (ESIM) a correct meter of suitable capacity was to be installed by the opposite party, but as per data, it is prima facie clear that consumption was inconstant and not correct. So bills raised were exorbitant and excess. As the meter is installed outside the premises, so as per 51.3 (xix) the opposite parties are responsible for the safety of the meter. Similarly as per 51.3(x) of ESIM the PSPCL has to install a display unit (another meter) inside the premises so that any variation could have detected, but the opposite parties have not installed a display unit inside the premises of complainant. If this had been installed then the variation must have been noticed and then it would have been easy to detect the inaccuracy of meter. The complainant alleged that as per instruction no. 104.7 of ESIM there is procedure to be adopted for variation in consumption and if there is more than +/- 20% of variation, then a proper investigation should be made and should be addressed but in complainant case there is more than 2500% variation in the month of 3/10/2018, but the opposite party did not take notice of it. Similarly there is abnormal variation on 18/7/2018 also. The opposite parties never compared or matched the consumption with previous record and are raising the bills without investigation. As the meter was first burnt and then changed and changed meter was also defective and had given abnormal reading consumption, so as per regulation 21.5.2 of Supply Code all the consumption on higher sides/months be corrected as per correct alternative given in regulations 21.5.2 of supply code with normal average. Thus, it is case of deficiency in service. Due to said illegal act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering great mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, humiliation and also suffering financial losses and as such he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 11000/- from the opposite parties. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant for following directions to the opposite parties :- a) Bills raised on 1.6.16 for Rs. 29,384/-, 20-7-18 for Rs. 50,504/-, 3-10-18 for Rs. 1,25,566/- be corrected b) Amount charged with manual posting amounting to Rs. 13,473/- be refunded c) Surcharges levied on bills be waived off or be removed d) Any other alternative and additional relief. On the statement of learned counsel for the complainant, name of opposite party No. 2 was deleted from the array of the opposite parties vide order dated 28-8-2019. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 & 3 appeared through their counsel and filed written reply raising legal objections that the complainant has got no cause of action; the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the complaint; the complainant has not come with clean hands and suppressed the materlal facts from this Commission and before filing the complaint, the complainant should have approached the Dispute Settlement Committee. It is pleaded that M.E. Lab report of the meter is absolutely correct and the opposite parties have issued the bill as per consumption of the meter and as per rules and regulations of PSPCL. The complainant did not deposit the bills, so the pending dues are added in the further bills. Further legal objections are that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant, so the complainant may be burdened with special costs 50,000/-. On facts, the opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant paid the bill as per his consumption. The bill of the amount of Rs,1,91,212/- has been issued as per consumption by the complainant and as per rules and regulations of PSPCL. After denying all other averments of the complainant, opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of complaint. In order to prove claim of the complainant, the complainant tenderd into evidence photocopies of regulations ( Ex.C-1 & C2), photocopy of detail of reading ( Ex.C-3), photocopy of regulation (Ex.C-5), photocopy of instructions (Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8), photocopy of regulation (Ex.C-9) and affidavit of Harvinder Singh dated 14-08-2019 ( Ex.C-10). In order to rebut the evidence led by the complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence photocopy of detail of due amount ( Ex.OP1/1), photocopy of blls ( Ex.OP1/2 to OP1/4), photocopy of reading detial ( Ex.OP1/5) and photocopy of memo ( Ex.OP1/6). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is no dispute between the parties that complainant is holder of electricity connection No. B-12GT120543 bearing account No. 3004598260 with sanctioned load of 19.96 KW. In the case hand, the complainant has alleged that on 2-7-2017, opposite parties noted status of meter as 'R' (burnt) and this burnt meter was changed after 240 days. Thereafter changed meter was again became defective as readings were inconsistent. The complainant challenged the meter on 4-10-2018 and it was changed on 23-11-2018. The opposite parties have not even sent a notice to complainant to visit and be present in M.E. Lab during checking of his defective meter. The controversity as emerges from record i.e. Ex. C-3/OP-1/5 of the parties is that problem started from the date 2-7-2017 when the meter was shown as burnt. Ofcourse there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in causing delay in changing the burnt meter and further not sending notice to complainant to remain present during checking in M.E. Lab, but problem does not solve here because the burnt meter which was changed on 1-3-2018 again became defective as reveals in aforesaid documents that 'N' code (defective) is shown against entry dated 18-7-2018. The complainant challenged that meter on 4-10-2018 and it was changed on 23-11-2018. The complainant has challenged three bills in this complaint. Bill raised on 1-6-2016 for Rs. 29,384/- 20-7-2018 for Rs. 50,504/- and 3-10-2018 for Rs. 1,25,566/-. Now so far as bill dated 1-6-2016 is concerned, that bill releates to the period before the meter was burnt i.e. 2-7-2017 and thus, at this stage that bill cannot be challenged by complainant when there was no dispute regarding meter at that time. The other bills challenged by complainant are dated 20-07-2018 and 3-10-2018. As per documents Ex. C-3/OP-1/5 meter was shown/became defective on 18-7-2018 and that defective meter was challenged by complainant on 4-10-2018 which was changed on 23-11-2018. Therefore, in such circumstances it can be said that readings taken w.e.f 18-7-18 onwards when 'N' code was shown against meter, were not accurate till 23-11-2018 when the meter was changed. Even a perusal of meter reading (Ex. C-3/Ex. OP-1/5) shows that meter showed consumed power in minus which itself proves that meter was defective. A perusal of file reveals that there is no evidence on file to show to whether the meter removed on 23-11-2018 (as per complainant) was sent to M.E. Lab for checking or not. There is nothing mentioned in the written reply of the opposite parties in this context. In such circumstances, it is to be seen that how the actual consumption can be calculated. Regulation 21.5.2 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations 2014, relates to 'Overhauling of Consumer Accounts'. Therefore, in this case, the consumer account is required to be overhauled as per this regulation. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with 10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant w.e.f 18-7-2018 to 23-11-2018 as per aforesaid Regulation 21.5.2 including the amount charged with manual posting (as detailed in para 7 of complaint), and issue fresh bill for the said period. Opposite parties are also directed to adjust the amount, if any, found paid by complainant in excess in his subsequent/future bills. It is made clear that complainant is not liable to pay any surcharge/sundry charges/arrears for the period from 18-7-2018 to 23-11-2018. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 29-11-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
