DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 133/2018
Date of Institution : 15.10.2018
Date of Decision : 19.08.2019
Yashpal Sharma aged 64 years son of Prem Chand resident of Street No. 3, Sekha Road, Barnala-148101 District Barnala. …Complainant
Versus
1. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division, Dhanaula Road, Barnala.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Lokeshwar Sewak counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President
2.Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
3.Smt. Manisha : Member
(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT):
1. The complainant namely Yashpal Sharma has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (In short the Act) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others (In short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the opposite parties have installed domestic power connection at the house of the complainant bearing account No. SK72/454 contract No. 3002215662 and the sanctioned load is only 3.82 KW. The complainant has been paying the bills regularly.
3. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties issued bill dated 31.8.2018 in which the old reading was shown as 18351 and new reading shown was 18568, as such consumption of 217 units was paid on the same day and in this bill the meter status was shown 'O' that means OK. On 19.2018 the very next day the officials of the opposite parties checked the connection and prepared a report in which it was shown that the meter was dead and meter reading was illegal and removed the meter and fixed a new meter on the same day. It is further alleged that the removed meter was not packed according to law and there is no allegation that the seals of the meter were tampered. They also observed that the verification by the ME Lab was required. The meter installed in a box fixed at the pole of the opposite parties far away from the house of the complainant and the box remains under lock of the opposite parties, as such the complainant has no approach to the meter. The another allegation of the complainant is that after removal the meter was not packed in card board box and sealed with the signatures of the complainant across the the seal and the card board box. But the opposite parties did not send the meter in ME Lab for testing within one week. Thereafter, the opposite parties sent bill dated 4.10.2018 raising a demand of Rs. 60,470/- showing the consumption of 6806 units which is simply impossible. It is alleged that the average consumption of power ranges between 300 to 400 units bi-monthly. It is further alleged that as per rule 51.3. VIII of the Electric Supply Manual, when the meter is fixed outside the house of the consumer, opposite parties are bound to fix real time display inside the house of the consumer, but in the present case that was not provided. The above said act of the opposite parties caused mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
i) The opposite parties may be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs. 60,470/- by way of quashing the bill dated 4.10.2018.
ii) To pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and physical harassment.
iii) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed a joint written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of jurisdiction, maintainability, clean hands and concealment of true facts, compliant is frivolous and vexatious etc.
5. On merits, it is admitted that the opposite parties have installed domestic power connection at the house of the complainant bearing account No. SK72/454 and its sanctioned load is 3.83 KW. It is denied that the complainant has been paying the bills time to time. It is further submitted that officers of the opposite parties had inspected the meter of the complainant on 1.9.2018 and observed that the meter of the complainant was dead and prepared checking report on the same day which is as under:-
"Site has been checked and the meter of the complainant found dead and the meter reading was not shown and the bill was issued on the basis of consumption. The meter was not found OK the meter be verified/checked in the ME Lab"
At the time of inspection the complainant was present there and he signed the same but he has not raised any objections at that time nor he moved any application before higher officer of the opposite parties. It is further averred that when the meter of the complainant checked by the ME Lab Sangrur, the son/representative of the complainant Mohit Sharma was present there and he signed the test report. Moreover, the opposite parties sent a notice to the complainant to appear before the ME Lab Sangrur alongwith date and time and after this representative of the complainant Mohit Sharma was appeared in the ME Lab Sangrur and he signed the test report as endorsement regarding the checking and ME Lab found that there is difference of consumption i.e. 25374 in spite of 18568 and the opposite parties demanded the amount of consumed electricity after calculating the difference from the date of its installation as per rules. Further, the opposite parties alleged that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of bill dated 31.8.2018 Ex.C-2, copy of receipt dated 31.8.2018 Ex.C-3, copy of checking report dated 1.9.2018 Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 4.10.2018 Ex.C-5, copies of electricity mannual Ex.C-6 to C-9 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Vikas Singla AEE Ex.O.P-1.2/1, copy of ME Lab report Ex.O.P1.2/2 and closed the evidence.
8. The complainant in order to rebut the written version of opposite parties filed rejoinder in which he has reiterated the submission as mentioned in complaint.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Written arguments filed by complainant have also been gone through.
10. To prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C-1 in which he has reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. He further placed on record the photocopy of bill and receipt dated 31.8.2018 Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 which shows that the complainant has paid Rs. 1,740/- for the consumption of 217 units. In this bill it is also mentioned the previous reading as 18351 and current reading as 18568. The sanctioned meter load 3.82 is not disputed between the parties. The complainant has also placed on record copy of checking report dated 1.9.2018 Ex.C-4, in which it is mentioned as under:-
Connected Load
P 13x1/4 = 4x60 = 0.240 KW
PP 1x 1 = 1KW
L 26x1/2 = 13x40 = 0.520 KW
F 6x1/3 = 2x 60 = 0.120KW
AC 2/1/2 = 1x 2 = 2KW ______
3.860
It is further mentioned in Ex.C-4 that site/premises of complainant has been checked and the meter of the complainant found dead and the meter reading was not shown and the bill was issued on the basis of consumption consumed by the consumer. The meter was not found OK and the meter be verified/checked in the ME Lab. Even, on this checking report the complainant appended his signature. Further, the complainant has placed on record photocopy of bill dated 4.10.2018 Ex.C-5, which shows the old meter reading as 18568 and the new meter reading as 25374. In this bill the total payable amount is shown as Rs. 60,470 for the consumption of 6806. The complainant has also placed on record copies of electricity manual Ex. C-6 to Ex.C-9.
11. Facing the situation, the opposite parties have placed on record an affidavit of Vikas Singla AEE of PSPCL Ex.O.P1.2/1, in which he has taken the stand as mentioned in the written version. The opposite parties have further placed on record copy of ME Lab report Ex.O.P1.2/2, in which it is mentioned as under:-
"Meter of Yashpal Sharma opened and checked in the ME Lab and the meter reading which was lastly recorded shown as 18568 and the bill be issued as per last shown meter reading and the required/necessary action be taken and the meter was packed and sent back"
It is important to mention here that the signatures of complainant/representative shown on the ME Lab report Ex.O.P1.2./2. Further, in this ME Lab report Ex.O.P1.2/2 in the column of remarks Rs. 60,470 shown for paying as bill amount.
12. Perusal of the record shows that on 1.9.2018 the checking of electricity meter of complainant has been done by the opposite parties in the presence of complainant/representative and during checking the above said meter was found dead and same was sent to the ME Lab for verification. Further, we have gone through the disputed bill dated 4.10.2018 Ex.C-5 in which the old meter reading shown as 18568 and the new meter reading as 25374, meaning thereby the bill for 6806 units for Rs. 60,470/- was issued. The complainant raised the objection that 6806 units were not consumed by the complainant because the opposite parties have wrongly prepared/assessed the above said bill. We have also perused the copy of bill Ex.C-2 paid by the complainant in which the current meter reading shown as 18568 and the previous meter reading as 18351. So, it is evident that the meter reading 18568 mentioned in bill dated 31.8.2018 Ex.C-2, is taken up in the next bill dated 4.10.2018 Ex.C-5.
13. No cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence is brought on record by the complainant to challenge the 'veracity' of Ex.O.P1.2/2. Admittedly, the meter in question was taken to the ME Lab, Sangrur and the same checked in the presence of complainant/representative. Surprisingly, no evidence is brought on record by the complainant qua his allegation on genuineness of the document Ex.O.P1.2/2. Even, during the pendency of the present complaint, the meter in question which is still installed in the premises of the complainant is not challenged by him in any manner. We are of the view that the complainant has failed to bring any cogent and confidence inspiring evidence on record that the meter was neither packed nor sealed in his presence, as the complainant/representative has appended his signatures on the checking report dated 1.9.2018 Ex.C-4. Further, it is the specific allegation of the opposite parties that the meter was got checked in accordance with rules in the ME Lab, Sangrur and was found dead.
14. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties has argued that the checking was conducted in the presence of complainant/representative Yashpal Sharma and his signatures were duly taken on the checking report Ex.C-4, which fact is not denied by the complainant in his complaint. Moreover, in Rohit Gambhir case Supra the meter was checked in the presence of the representative of the complainant, so the Revision filed by the complainant was dismissed. In the instant case the checking was done by the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant/representative and his signatures were duly taken on the checking report Ex.C-4. The same view was also taken by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Baldev Krishan Versus Punjab State Electricity Board reported as 2011 (2) Consumer Law Today-339.
15. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
19th Day of August, 2019
(Kuljit Singh)
President
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
(Manisha)
Member
