Punjab

Sangrur

CC/497/2018

Rajesh Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Bhushan Kumar Garg

18 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                              Complaint No.  497

   Instituted on:    29.11.2018

                                                               Decided on:     18.10.2022

 

Rajesh Aggarwal son of Sh. Ravinderkaran Aggarwal son of Sh. Ram Karan Aggarwal, resident of Punia Colony, Gali No.10, Sangrur (Pb).

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its M.D.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer (SDO), Sub Division, Badrukhan, Sangrur.

             ….Opposite parties

For complainant         : Shri Bhushan Garg, Adv.              

For OPs                    : Shri Hitesh Jindal, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL:    PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          :    MEMBER

 

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER

1.             Complainant  has  preferred the present complaint against the opposite  parties  on the ground that the domestic electric connection bearing account number 3000710939 is running in the name of one Prem Mohan Tiwari son of Sh. Brij Nandan of Sangrur from whom the complainant had purchased the house in question vide sale deed number 207 dated 30.4.2001 alongwith the above said electric connection.  The grievance of the complainant is that he received bill dated 14.7.2018 for Rs.42,180/-, which is said to be illegal and excessive one and the bill is for the period from 5.5.2018 to 14.7.2018 (old meter reading as 2005 and new meter reading as 6391 consumption 4386 units). It is further averred that previous bill for the period from 9.5.2017 to 6.7.2017 was for 3027 units.  As such, the complainant approached OPs and apprised about the higher consumption bill and on the request of the complainant meter was changed after deposit of Rs.120/- vide receipt dated 3.8.2018 by the OPs.  Further case of complainant is that OPs issued next bill for Rs.30,950/- on 8.9.2018 for consumption of 3339 units which is also said to be on the higher side.

2.             Further case of the complainant is that the old remover meter was not checked in the ME laboratory in his presence nor any notice was issued to the complainant to come present in the ME laboratory at the time of checking of the defective meter, which is said to be illegal one.  Though the complainant requested the OPs to refund the extra amount of the bill dated 14.7.2018 of Rs.42,180/- after decreasing the amount of corresponding  bill of the same period of previous year which was of Rs.23080/-  meaning thereby the difference of amount of both the electric bills of Rs.19,100/- be refunded to the complainant. Similarly, the OPs have charged from the complainant regarding 1716 units recorded by the old electricity meter in the next bill dated 8.9.2018 and after calculation a difference of about Rs.5500/- is there which amount is said to be in excess recovered from the complainant.  Though the complainant requested the OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,400/- (Rs.19900/- plus Rs.5500/-), but the same was not refunded.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that OPs be directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.25,400/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands. On merits, it has been stated that the bills have been rightly issued as per the actual consumption of electricity and the demand of Rs.42,180/- in the bill dated 14.7.2018 has rightly been raised.   Further it is stated that the bill dated 8.9.2018 has also rightly been issued as per the actual consumption. It has been stated further that the meter was checked in the ME laboratory vide store challan dated 21.05.2018 during the presence of the officials of the PSPCL and it was found that the meter was working correctly.  It is further stated that the consumer was not informed about the checking of the meter in the ME laboratory because at the time of meter challenge, consumer gave his self declaration for accepting the ME laboratory results, as such it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied. Lastly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

4.             In replication, the complainant has denied the allegations of the OPs that the complainant ever gave any declaration for accepting of the ME laboratory results and further stated that the OPs have not called the complainant in the ME laboratory at the time of checking of the meter.  

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 copies of documents and  Ex.C-6 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.R-1 to Ex.OP-2 documents and Ex.R-3 affidavit and closed evidence.

6.             We have perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

7.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs being beneficiary of the electricity connection in question as it was purchased by the complainant alongwith the house where the electricity connection is installed as is evident from the copy of the sale deed, which is on record as Ex.C-1. It is further admitted that the OPs issued bill dated 14.7.2018 Ex.C-2 for Rs.42,180/- and another bill dated 08.9.2018 for Rs.30,950/- Ex.C-5, which bills have been challenged by the complainant being on the higher side. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has already deposited both the electricity bills Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-5 with the OPs. It is also not in dispute that the complainant deposited Rs.120/- with the Ops for challenging the accuracy of the electricity meter in question and accordingly OPs removed the electricity meter in question, but the grievance of the complainant is that the meter in question was never checked in the presence of the complainant nor he was ever intimated to come present in the ME laboratory at the time of checking of the electricity meter in question, which is very necessary as per own regulations of the OPs.   Further, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that though electricity meter of the complainant was replaced by the OPs, but the same was not packed and sealed in a card board box nor the same was checked in the ME laboratory in presence of the complainant or his representative nor the complainant was ever called for at the time of checking of the electricity meter in question, as such he has prayed for refund of the excess amount of Rs.25,400/- which was recovered from the complainant.  The complainant has also produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-6 to support his contention in the complaint.  Though the OPs produced short sworn affidavit of Shri Ram Chand, SDO, PSPCL, Sub Division, Badrukhan, wherein it has been stated that the reply of the complaint be read as a part of the affidavit, but again it is missing in the affidavit that why the complainant was not called upon to come present in the ME laboratory at the time of checking of the disputed meter.

8.             Further the learned counsel for the complainant has  contended that the removed meter in question was not packed and sealed as per the instructions contained in commercial circular number 8/99, which provides that as per the existing instructions contained in para 2 ( c) of CC number 45/97 dated 17.12.1997, it is mandatory that all the meters removed against any MCO are to be sent to ME laboratories, in the sealed card box duly signed by the concerned PSEB officers/officials and the consumer or his representative. The testing of such meters shall be done in the presence of consumer or his representative. In case, consumer refuses to sign the meter test results/report, such meters shall be kept in the sealed box by the OP.S/Divn. till the final disposal of the case. If the consumer deposits the compensation amount without going to the Dispute Settlement Committee or Civil Courts, such sealed meter shall be returned to the ME laboratories. Similar procedure is to be adopted in case meters sealed by the Enforcement Agencies/Operation Organization in theft cases.”  But, in the present case, no such instructions have been followed by the Ops rather the same have been violated by the own officers/officials of the OPs by not calling the complainant in the ME laboratory.   There is nothing mentioned in the written reply of the OPs that whether the meter in question was packed in the cardboard box and thereafter it was sealed and signed by the complainant and officer/officials of the OPs.    The electricity meter in question was neither replaced in the presence of the consumer nor his representative as discussed above.  In Tarsem Singh versus Punjab State Electricity Board 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 584 (P&H), it has been held that checking of the defective meters should be done in the presence of the consumer or his representative.  A notice should be given to the consumer or his representative about the date, time and place of testing of meter.  Procedure prescribed to this effect in the Punjab State Electricity Board’s Commercial circulars number 45/98 and 8/99 is mandatory.  But, in the present case, there is no explanation that why such instructions as contained in the commercial circular number 8/99 were not adhered to by the OPs.  In these circumstances, we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant and to raise the bills dated 14.7.2018 and 08.09.2018 as per the consumption of the previous year.

9.             In view of our above discussions and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the bills dated 14.7.2018 and 08.09.2018 and further  to raise fresh bills dated 14.7.2018 and 08.09.2018 after overhauling the account as per the consumption of the previous year and the excess amount be refunded to the complainant.   The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment and an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.     

10.            This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                October 18, 2022.

 

 

 

            (Sarita Garg)                           (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                 Member                                          President