DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.434 of 17-09-2010

Decided on 04-02-2011

1. Vimaljit wife of Sham Lal son of Banarsi Dass, resident of Gandhi Nagar, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil &

    Distt. Bathinda.

    

2. Ashok Kumar son of Chandgi Ram, resident of Ward No.11, Gandhi Basti, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil &

   Distt. Bathinda.

    

3. Vinod Kumar son of Sohan Lal, resident of Ward No.1, Raja Basti, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & Distt.

   Bathinda.

.......Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,(formerly Punjab State Electricity Board), The Mall, Patiala,

   through its MD.

    

2. XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.

    

3. SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.

    

4. Ranjit Kumar @ Raju, Contractor, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, son of Om Parkash,

   resident of Ward No.11, Gandhi Basti, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil and District 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 Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.S.S.Sohi, counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 3.

Sh.S.K.Sharma, counsel for opposite party No.4.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The present complaint has been jointly filed by the complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that Vimaljit wife of Sham Lal was original owner of the residential house where the electricity meter bearing A/cNo.E93LP400346Y has been installed and the load of 1.88KW is running. Vimaljit sold the said house to Ashok Kumar son of Chandgi Ram and the possession of the said house was handed over to him but the meter stood in the name of Vimaljit till date. Thereafter, Ashok Kumar, has been using the electricity and paying the electricity bills received from time to time. Ashok Kumar has rented out the said house to Vinod Kumar and Vinod Kumar has been living in the said house and using the electricity and was paying the bills. Vimaljit had appointed Vinod Kumar-complainant as her special Attorney to file and pursue the present complaint. The complainant further alleged that Sunita Rani wife of the complainant-Vinod Kumar had contested the election for the office of Municipal Councilor from ward No.11, opposite real sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the opposite party No.4 and Sunita Rani had emerged winner. Due to this reason, the opposite party No.4 and his other family members nursed grudge against the complainant-Vinod Kumar and his other family members. Earlier, the electricity meter of the connection was installed inside the residential premises of the complainant-Vinod Kumar. About 3 months back, all the electricity meters of the residential premises of the area of the complainant-Vinod Kumar were shifted outside the respective premises as per the policy of the opposite party No.1 and similarly, the opposite party No.4 who is contractor of the opposite party No.1 for changing of the electricity meters, shifted the meter of the complainant-Vinod Kumar but instead of installing the meter No.9472870, removed from within the premises outside the house, the opposite party No.4 installed the new meter. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have issued bill dated 21.08.2010 for 1516 units demanding a payment of Rs. 6,810/- with surcharge of Rs.591/-. The old and new reading of the meter has been shown as 2 and 602 respectively. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have included 916 units of the old meter installed in the residential premises of the complainant. The previous bill dated 21.06.2010 was issued to the complainant-Vinod Kumar by the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 for 120 units for a sum of Rs.580/- showing the old meter reading as 14286 and new reading as 10. The meter was not changed by the opposite party No.4 (in the capacity of contractor of the opposite party No.1) in the presence of the complainant-Vinod Kumar or any of his family members. The meter was not packed in the cardboard box and not sealed in the presence of Vinod Kumar or his representative as required under the provisions of the law. The opposite party No.3 in connivance with officials of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 have sent bill for 916 units of the old meter by making manipulation. The bill dated 21.08.2010 for an amount of Rs.7,401/- is not recoverable from the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint and prayed for withdrawal of charges for 916 units of the previous meter besides litigation expenses and compensation.

2. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have filed their joint written statement and submitted that as per policy of the opposite parties, all the old meter of meter holders were to be changed into electronic meters and at the time of removing the old meter installed in the premises of the complainants in the month of May, 2010. The ME seals of the old meter were tampered and after removing the old meter, the same was packed in the cardboard box in the presence of the complainant-Vinod Kumar but he refused to sign the MCO. The same was sent to ME Lab and registered notice dated 07.10.2010 was issued to the complainant, asking the complainant-Vimaljit to come present on 14.10.2010 for checking the meter in ME Lab and thereafter reminder dated 29.10.2010 through registered post was issued to the complainant-Vimaljit to come present on 08.11.2010 in the ME Lab for checking of the meter. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued last and final notice to the complainant-Vimaljit but on all the dates, the complainant could not turned up. At the time of removal of the meter, the consumption/meter reading was 15202 and new electric meter was installed at the pillar box and at the time of installing the electronics meter, the meter reading was 2 units and at the time of visiting the meter reader for recording the reading, found that the old meter was changed and new meter was installed and reading could not be detected and as such, the bill for the month of April and May, 2010 was sent on average basis for 120 units and bill of Rs.580/- was issued dated 21.06.2010 on average basis for the said period. The opposite parties have issued bill for 916 units at the time of removing the old meter and new meter reading was 602 units for the period of June and July, 2010. The bill of consumption of 1516 units was issued to the complainant.

3. The opposite party No.4 has pleaded in its separate written statement that he has only installed pillar box as a private contractor of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and has denied all other allegations levelled against him.

4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. The complainant has submitted that originally the connection was in the name of Vimaljit wife of Sham Lal. The house in which the connection was installed, has been sold by the complainant to Ashok Kumar and handed over the possession of the said house to Ashok Kumar but the electric connection is still in the name of Vimaljit. Ashok Kumar has further rented out the said house to Vinod Kumar. About 3 months back, all the electric meters of the residential premises of the area of the complainant-Vinod Kumar were shifted outside the premises as per the policy of the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.4 who is contractor of the opposite party No.1, shifted the meter from the premises of the complainant but instead of installing the meter No.9472870, which was removed from the premises, the opposite party No.4 installed the new meter. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have issued bill dated 21.08.2010 for 1516 units demanding a payment of Rs.6,810/-. The new reading of the meter of the complainant has been shown as 2 at the time of installing the meter. The opposite parties have also included 916 units of the old meter installed in the residential premises of the complainant-Vinod Kumar. The said meter has not been changed by the opposite party No.4 in the presence of the complainant-Vinod Kumar or any of his family members. The meter was neither packed in the cardboard box nor was sealed in the presence of the complainant nor any of his representative.

7. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have submitted that all the old meter of meter holders were to be changed into electronic meter and at the time of removing the old meter installed in the premises of the complainant, in the month of May, 2010, the ME seals of the old meter were found tampered. The old meter was removed and packed in the cardboard box in the presence of the complainant-Vinod Kumar but he refused to sign the same. The meter was sent to ME Lab and the opposite parties issued registered notice dated 07.10.2010 asking the complainant-Vinod Kumar to come present on 14.10.2010 for checking the meter in ME Lab and the reminder to the said notice was also given on 29.10.2010 through registered post to come present on 08.11.2010 for checking the meter of the complainant and thereafter, the opposite parties issued last and final notice to the complainant to come present in ME Lab on 22.11.2010 for checking the meter but the complainant had failed to appear before ME Lab for getting the meter checked in his presence. At the time of removal of the old meter, the consumption reading was 15202 units and new electric meter was installed at the pillar box as per the policy of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. At the time of installing the electric meter, the meter reading was 2 units. The meter reader found that the old meter was changed with new one and the reading could not be detected and as such, the bill for the month of April/May, 2010 was issued on average basis for 120 units for Rs.580/- on 21.06.2010. On 21.08.2010, the bill for the period of 26.03.2010 to 26.07.2010 was issued for Rs.6,810/-, in this bill, the consumed units are shown as 600 where as 916 units were shown as the consumption of old meter, in this way, the bill of consumption of 1516 units was issued to the complainant.

8. The opposite party No.4 i.e. contractor has not shifted the meter outside the premises of the complainant, he has only installed pillar box in which the meter is to be installed later on by the officials of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. He is neither responsible for removing the meter from the premises of the complainant nor installing the new meter outside the premises of the complainant. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 21.08.2010 in which, the opposite parties have shown 916 units for the old meter whereas the previous bill dated 21.06.2010 Ex.C-7 was sent on average basis because the meter was changed.

9. A perusal of Ex.R-3 shows that the reading taken from 5/2009 to 5/2010 is in between 116 units to 149 units whereas the reading recorded on the MCO and the consumption data is for 916 units. The MCO dated 24.05.2010 is not signed by the complainant as it has been written that the complainant has refused to sign the MCO. This shows that the document Ex.R-4 is after thought of the opposite parties. Moreover, the consumption of previous one year from the period of 05/2009 to 05/2010 shows that it has never increased from 149 units. When the meter was changed, the old reading was recorded to the tune of 916 units. Hence, the reading recorded by the opposite parties to the tune of 916 is not correct.

10. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, this complaint is partly accepted against the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 with Rs.500/- as cost and compensation and dismissed qua opposite party No.4. The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 are directed to withdraw the demand raised on account of 916 units. The opposite parties are at liberty to charge the remaining bill of 602 units. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '

Pronounced in open Forum

04-02-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member