DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB. 

Complaint Case No : CC/142/2021

Date of Institution : 26.07.2021

Date of Decision : 17.05.2023

Seema Kansal wife of Sh. Dharampal Kansal resident of Gali No. 7, School Road, Ward No. 4, Tapa-148108, District Barnala, Punjab.             …Complainant

Versus

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Tapa-1, through its Assistant Executive Engineer. 

2.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Urban Division, Dhanaula Road, Barnala, through its Executive Engineer. 

3.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Road, Patiala, through its Chairman.   

                …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. R.K. Singla counsel for complainant.

Sh. Lokeshwar Sewak counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2.Smt Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The complainant namely Seema Kansal has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, (amended upto date) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the electricity connection No. L62NM160009F is running in the name of Krishan Kumar at Model Town, Tapa, District Barnala and he sold the said house to Lachhman Kumar, vide sale deed dated 1.12.1998 and thereafter the said Lachhman Kumar sold the said house to the complainant vide sale deed dated 20.6.2011, as such the complainant is using the said electricity connection and deposited the electricity bills raised by the opposite parties time to time. It is further alleged that the complainant was not residing at the said property and thus no electricity was consumed by the complainant at the said place. The complainant received bill dated 22.12.2017 for the period from 10.10.2017  to 22.12.2017 showing meter status OK and old reading as 2907 and new reading 2907 thus indicating meter consumption as Zero amounting to Rs. 19,670/- and the complainant deposited the said bill alongwith surcharge vide cheque No. 15 dated 3.2.2018 from the account of her husband Sh. Dharampal Kansal amounting to Rs. 20,423/-. It is further alleged that the complainant deposited Rs. 450/- on 26.2.2018 as meter challenge fee and on this the opposite parties removed the said meter and installed a new meter to check the consumption. The removed meter was neither sealed or not packed in the card board box as per rules of the opposite parties. It is further alleged that the complainant moved an application dated 5.10.2018 to the opposite parties asking them to disconnect the said electricity connection as the complainant did not need this electricity connection and the officials of the opposite parties checked the said meter and gave a written report. On 14.12.2018 the complainant again moved an application for disconnecting the said electricity connection permanently as the complainant is not in need of the said connection and the officials of the opposite parties visited the premises and gave report that the said meter is fixed in meter cup board and disconnected the electricity connection. It is further alleged that surprisingly the complainant received a letter No. 2659 dated 15.1.2021 that an amount of Rs. 1,82,475/- is still pending against the said electricity connection and mentioned that as per store challan No. 39 dated 28.10.2020 the last reading of the said removed meter was found 24177 units and the complainant has billed/paid only for 2907 units, as such the complainant is liable to pay the balance amount. It is further alleged that neither the complainant received any notice from the opposite parties to appear in the ME Lab for the checking of removed meter nor the said removed meter was checked in the ME Lab in the presence of the complainant, as such the report of the ME Lab and the above said letter is against the rules of the opposite parties and principal of natural justice. It is further alleged that as per rules of the opposite parties the removed meter should have been checked within one month from its removal. The meter was removed in the 1st week of March 2018 and as per letter No. 2659 dated 15.1.2021 it is indicated that the removed meter was checked vide store challan No. 39 dated 28.10.2020 meaning thereby after the expiry of two years and ten months. Therefore, the present demand of Rs. 1,82,475/- vide letter dated 15.1.2021 is raised beyond limitations. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i)To withdraw letter No. 2659 dated 15.1.2021 and remove the said property from the defaulting list of the opposite parties.

ii)To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 

iii)Any other relief, which the Hon’ble Commission deems fit. 

3. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability because the complainant is not the consumer of opposite parties. As per record of the opposite parties Krishan Lal is the connection holder of the alleged connection nor the complainant have ever moved an application to change the same till today, hence the present complaint is barred and liable to be dismissed on this score alone. It is further alleged that the complainant herself challenged the meter after depositing the meter challenge fee then she herself not present before the ME Lab at the time of checking in spite of many notices. Further, the present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law to harass and blackmail the opposite parties. This Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint etc. 

4. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant has deposited Rs. 20,423/- with the opposite parties. It is further submitted that the complainant is saying that the reading of the disputed meter was 2907 old and 2907 new and she had deposited Rs. 20,423/- with the opposite parties. But everybody knows when nothing has been consumed by him/her then why he/she will deposit such a huge amount without any reason without moving any application. It is further alleged that on the basis of meter challenge fee of Rs. 450 on 26.2.2018 deposited by the complainant the opposite parties had changed the meter vide MCO dated 27.3.2018 and the same was signed by the husband of the complainant Dharampal and the old meter was also packed and sealed in the presence of husband of the complainant and he also signed the same. Moreover, the husband of the complainant Dharamapl has been given an affidavit to the opposite parties that he will bind to agree with the report after checking what so ever. It is further submitted that letter No. 2659 dated 15.1.2021 was sent as per the testing report of the meter which was challenged by the complainant and same is correct. It is denied that the complainant has not received any notice to appear in the ME Lab for checking the meter in question. The opposite parties have sent many notices to complainant regarding the checking of challenged meter on the day fixed in which notice dated 25.10.2019 was received by the husband of the complainant and then 13.12.2019 was received by some representative of the complainant Gurpal and he signed the same in which earlier dates had mentioned on which the earlier notices were sent to complainant for appearing before ME Lab Sangrur and it is also clearly mentioned that if you did not reach then the meter will be checked in your absence and you will not claim after that regarding its checking. But the complainant never reached in time in the ME Lab Sangrur now under malafide intention the complainant told that no notice was received by her at any time. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.  

5. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of sale deed Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3, copy of bill Ex.C-4, copies of receipts Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6, copies of letters Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.  

6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Amandeep Singh Ex.O.Ps-1, copy of receipt dated 26.2.2018 Ex.O.Ps-2, copy of MCO Ex.O.Ps-3, copies of letters dated 13.12.2019, 25.10.2019 Ex.O.Ps-4 & Ex.O.Ps-5, copy of meter testing report Ex.O.Ps-6, copy of meter testing status Ex.O.Ps-7, copy of letter dated 30.1.2018 Ex.O.Ps-8, copy of self declaration Ex.O.Ps-9, copy of letter dated 15.1.2021 Ex.O.Ps-10 and closed the evidence.    

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the opposite parties. 

8. Seema Kansal wife of Dharampal Kansal resident of Tapa is using the electricity connection bearing Account No.  L62NM160009F, which is in the name of Krishan Kumar. The complainant received bill Ex.C-4 dated 22.12.2017 for the period from 10.10.2017 to 22.12.2017 for Rs. 19,670/- showing the meter status OK, both old and new meter reading is 2907 thus indicating Zero consumption. The complainant deposited the same with surcharge Ex.C-5, amounting to Rs. 20,423/-. 

9. The complainant challenged the working of meter on 26.2.2018 after depositing the meter challenge fee of Rs. 450/- Ex.C-6. The opposite parties replaced the meter vide MCO dated 27.3.2018 Ex.O.Ps-3. The meter was sent to the ME Lab Sangrur for testing. Again on 14.12.2018 the complainant moved an application for disconnecting the said electricity connection mentioning the reason, not in need of said connection. The officials of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant and gave their report that the said meter is fixed in the meter cup board with Sr. No. 131290 of Flash Make with reading 00000KWH Ex.C-7 & Ex.C-8. 

10. The complainant received a letter No. 2659 dated 15.1.2021. As per testing report of the meter for which the complainant is asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,82,475/- Ex.C-9 and this notice is challenged by the complainant. It is mentioned in the report that the last reading of meter with Sr. No. 4853 is 24177 KWH and the complainant had been billed upto 2907 KWH reading only. So, the complainant has to deposit Rs. 1,82,475/- for (24177-2907 = 21270 units). 

11. On the other hand, the opposite parties have admitted that a sum of Rs. 20,423/- was deposited by the complainant on 2.2.2018. On the basis of the meter challenge fee deposited by the complainant the opposite parties changed the meter vide MCO dated 27.3.2018 Ex.O.Ps-3. The opposite parties have alleged that as per Ex.O.Ps-4 & Ex.O.Ps-5 they have sent Notice No 1734 dated 12.10.2018, Notice No. 2168 dated 28.12.2018, Notice No. 3269 dated 20.5.2019 and Notice No. 3419 dated 25.10.2019 to the complainant for the checking of challenged meter in their presence which were received by her husband and a representative of the complainant. But the complainant never reached in the ME Lab Sangrur for the checking of the meter. 

12. After going through the contents of the complaint and various Exhibits of both the parties and reply given by the opposite parties, this Commission is of the view that the demand raised by the opposite parties vide letter No. 2659 dated 15.1.2021 is illegal. The bill issued to the complainant on dated 22.12.2017 with meter status OK and Nil consumption and meter which was replaced in place of challenged meter also recorded reading 00000 KWH, which shows that there is no consumption made by the complainant at her premises. It is also not possible that the consumption of electricity from 22.12.2017 to 27.3.2018 (three months and five days ) is of 21270 units for which the opposite parties did not produce cogent evidence.  

13. In view of the above discussion we partly allow the present complaint and the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the letter No. 2659 dated 15.1.2021 and charge from the complainant for the electricity consumption period i.e. from 22.12.2017 to 27.3.2018 as per PSPCL instructions/rules. The opposite parties are also directed to pay the consolidated amount of Rs. 3,300/- on account of mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. 

14. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

15. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

       17th Day of May, 2023

 

            (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member