Order by
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that an electric connection bearing No.GK-54/29H New Account No. 3002424229 is installed in the residential premises of the complainant and he is using the said connection since long and paying the consumer charges regularly. The complainant alleges that the Opposite Parties changed said domestic single phase meter to three phase meter on 13.08.2015 but said meter has not been functioning properly as it was running very fast unnecessarily. In this regard, the complainant made complaint with the Opposite Parties on 04.12.2015 and challenged the said fast running and deposited Rs.450/- on 4.12.2015. Accordingly said three phase meter was changed by the Opposite Parties on 18.12.2015 and the complainant paid the consumption charges upto 30.11.2015 and the Opposite Parties recovered the balance amount in the next consumption bills. Thereafter on 1.12.2018, the complainant made request to Opposite Parties to refund the excess charged amount amounting to Rs.24,000/- for the period 13.08.2015 to 18.12.2015 which was claimed by the Opposite Parties on account of fast running of meter. The electric meter was installed outside the residential premises of his house and it is the responsibility of the Opposite Parties to keep in protected. The complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to refund the excess deposited amount alongwith interest, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To refund the amount of Rs.24,000/- alongwith interest thereon w.e.f. 01.01.2016till its realization which the Opposite Parties have illegally recovered from the complainant in violation of prescribed rules and regulations and also to pay Rs.50.000/- on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment or any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint for the redressal of his grievance .
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable. Actual facts are that the bill for the month of 10/2015 was issued of unit 3275 which is 2784 of new meter connection + 491 units of Old meter consumption amounting to Rs.23,988/-. Thereafter, the bill for the month of 12/2015 was issued for 2541 units amounting to Rs.19,480/-. The complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing the necessary fee and accordingly, the meter was changed vide MCO dated 04.12.2015 and was sent to ME Lab vide store challan dated 23.12.2015 duly sealed and packed in the card board box. In the ME Lab, Senior XEN Enforcement, Moga checked the meter and accuracy was found OK. The meter was checked in the absence of the complainant as the complainant has given self declaration on 4.12.2015 stating therein that he has got no objection if the meter is checked in his absence and the result of the ME Lab will be acceptable and binding upon him. Accordingly, the complainant is liable to pay the amount of the bills and the amounts of bill are relates only to consumption charges and hence the demand of the Opposite Parties is legal one and in accordance with rules and regulations of the Corporation. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Disputes Settlement Committee of the corporation and the case of the complainant was considered in the meeting held on 24.09.2018 of said Committee and it was decided that the bill of 2540 units rectified to the extent of 2049 units and amounting to Rs.14,092/- and as the complainant deposited excess amount of Rs.3818/- hence as per the Order of Disputes Settlement Committee, the bill of the complainant has been rectified and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sukhdeep Singh, SDO Ex.OPs1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs2 to Ex.OPs9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and also gone through the evidence produced on record.
6. The Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the written version filed on behalf of Opposite Parties has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. Opposite Party is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party which is legally not maintainable. Further contended that it is not disputed that the complainant approached the Disputes Settlement Committee, but with no result. The amount of bill for the period 8/2015 has been refunded to the complainant on 24.09.2018 in his absence. Moreover, there was cutting in the mechanical lab report and the same is not trustworthy and no decision was taken by the said Disputes Settlement Committee regarding issue raised by the complainant. The complainant further contended that the Opposite Parties changed said domestic single phase meter to three phase meter on 13.08.2015 but said meter has not been functioning properly as it was running very fast unnecessarily. In this regard, the complainant made complaint with the Opposite Parties on 04.12.2015 and challenged the said fast running and deposited Rs.450/- on 4.12.2015. Accordingly said three phase meter was changed by the Opposite Parties on 18.12.2015 and the complainant paid the consumption charges upto 30.11.2015 and the Opposite Parties recovered the balance amount in the next consumption bills. Thereafter on 1.12.2018, the complainant made request to Opposite Parties to refund the excess charged amount amounting to Rs.24,000/- for the period 13.08.2015 to 18.12.2015 which was claimed by the Opposite Parties on account of fast running of meter. The electric meter was installed outside the residential premises of his house and it is the responsibility of the Opposite Parties to keep in protected. The complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties to refund the excess deposited amount alongwith interest, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the bill for the month of 10/2015 was issued of unit 3275 which is 2784 of new meter connection + 491 units of Old meter consumption amounting to Rs.23,988/-. Thereafter, the bill for the month of 12/2015 was issued for 2541 units amounting to Rs.19,480/-. The complainant challenged the accuracy of the meter by depositing the necessary fee and accordingly, the meter was changed vide MCO dated 04.12.2015 and was sent to ME Lab vide store challan dated 23.12.2015 duly sealed and packed in the card board box. In the ME Lab, Senior XEN Enforcement, Moga checked the meter and accuracy was found OK. The meter was checked in the absence of the complainant as the complainant has given self declaration on 4.12.2015 stating therein that he has got no objection if the meter is checked in his absence and the result of the ME Lab will be acceptable and binding upon him. Accordingly, the complainant is liable to pay the amount of the bills and the amounts of bill are relates only to consumption charges and hence the demand of the Opposite Parties is legal one and in accordance with rules and regulations of the Corporation. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Disputes Settlement Committee of the corporation and the case of the complainant was considered in the meeting held on 24.09.2018 of said Committee and it was decided that the bill of 2540 units rectified to the extent of 2049 units and amounting to Rs.14,092/- and as the complainant deposited excess amount of Rs.3818/- hence as per the Order of Disputes Settlement Committee, the bill of the complainant has been rectified and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. Perusal of the contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant shows that the written version filed on behalf of Opposite Party Corporation Limited has not been filed by an authorized person. Therefore, the written version so filed is not maintainable. The Opposite Party is limited Company and written version has been filed on the basis of special power of attorney given to ld.counsel for the Opposite Party. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment (2011)II Supreme Court Cases 524 titled as “State Bank of Travancore Vs. Kingston Computers India Pvt. Ltd.” and in para no.11 of the judgment, has held that
“the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. On the plea that one authority letter dated 02.01.2003 was issued by Sh. R.K.Shukla in favour of Sh. A.K.Shukla. Further plaint failed to place on record its memorandum/articles to show that Sh. R.k.Shukla has been vested with the powers or had been given a general power of attorney on behalf of the Company to sign, verify and institute the suit on behalf of the Company.”
Similar proposition came before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Nibro Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.”, 2 (2005) 5SCC 30 that the
“bear authority is not recognized under law and ultimately, it was held that the plaint was not instituted by an authorized person. Here also appellant has not placed on record any resolution passed by any Board of Director in favour of Mr. Soonwon Kwon and that he was further authorised to delegate his power in favour of any other person. Further there is no memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Mr. Soonwon Kwon is one of the Director of the Company. In the absence of that evidence on record we cannot say that the special power of attorney given by Director Soonwon Kwon is a competent power of attorney issued in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh. In the absence of any resolution of the Company or any memorandum/articles of the Company to show that Sh. Soonwon Kwon is Director and that he was further authorised to issue power of attorney in favour of Sh. Bhupinder Singh.”
Recently our own Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in FAO No.1235 of 2015 decided on 25.01.2017 in case titled as L.G.Electronics India Private Limited Vs. Sita Ram Chaudhary also held that the plaint instituted by an unauthorized person has no legal effect.
9. For the sake of arguments, for the time being, if the written reply filed by Opposite Parties is presumed to be correct, the case of the complainant is that the amount of bill for the period 8/2015 has been refunded to the complainant on 24.09.2018 in his absence. Moreover, there was cutting in the mechanical lab report and the same is not trustworthy and no decision was taken by the said Disputes Settlement Committee regarding issue raised by the complainant. The complainant further contended that the Opposite Parties changed said domestic single phase meter to three phase meter on 13.08.2015 but said meter has not been functioning properly as it was running very fast unnecessarily. In this regard, the complainant made complaint with the Opposite Parties on 04.12.2015 and challenged the said fast running and deposited Rs.450/- on 4.12.2015. Accordingly said three phase meter was changed by the Opposite Parties on 18.12.2015 and the complainant paid the consumption charges upto 30.11.2015 and the Opposite Parties recovered the balance amount in the next consumption bills. Thereafter on 1.12.2018, the complainant made request to Opposite Parties to refund the excess charged amount amounting to Rs.24,000/- for the period 13.08.2015 to 18.12.2015 which was claimed by the Opposite Parties on account of fast running of meter. On the other hand, the meter was changed vide MCO dated 04.12.2015 and was sent to ME Lab vide store challan dated 23.12.2015 duly sealed and packed in the card board box. In the ME Lab, Senior XEN Enforcement, Moga checked the meter and accuracy was found OK. But bare perusal of said report of ME Lab Ex.C10 (same copy produced by the Opposite Parties on record as Ex.Ops4) shows that there is cutting in the column of ‘meter consumption’ and it was lateron changed and manufactured after cutting and on this report, we can not believe that the Opposite Parties may have passed any accurate and reasoned order regarding the accuracy of defective meter and as such, certainly violation of regulation 21.5.2 of rules and regulations 2015 referred above also committed in this case. In the instant case, the complainant has challenged the meter consumption for the period w.e.f. 13.08.2015 to 18.12.2015 on account of fast running of meter. In such a situation, Regulation 21.5.1 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations (as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Reg.97 dated November 5, 2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette(Extra) dated November 5, 2014) provides that on account of Inaccurate Meters: the accounts of a consumer shall be overhauled/ billed for the period meter remained defective/ dead stop subject to maximum period of six months and the procedure for overhauling the account of the consumer shall be on the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year. In case the consumption of corresponding period of the previous year is not available, the average monthly consumption of previous six months during which the meter was functional, shall be adopted for overhauling of accounts. If neither the consumption of corresponding period of previous year nor for the last six months is available then average of the consumption for the period the meter worked correctly during the last six months shall be taken for overhauling the account of the consumer. Where, the consumption of the previous months/ period as referred in para (a) to para (c) is not available, the consumer shall be tentatively billed on the basis of consumption assessed as per para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the corresponding period of the succeeding year. In the instant case, the previous meter of the complainant was single phase meter which was changed to three phase meter and hence, the account of the complainant is to be overhauled by taking the average of accurate functioning of three phase meter and we pass the order accordingly.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the demand of Rs.24,000/- charged from the complainant regarding the difference of bills of the period w.e.f. 13.08.2015 to 18.12.2015 on account of fast running of meter is set aside being violative of rules and regulations and principles of natural justice. However, the Opposite Parties are at liberty to overhaul the account of the complainant for the period w.e.f. 13.08.2015 to 18.12.2015 by taking the average consumption of corresponding period of the succeeding year when the three phase meter was accurately functional. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The Opposite Parties are also directed to adjust or refund the amount of Rs.24,000/-, deposited by the Complainant against the disputed bills with the Opposite Parties. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as the situation arising due to outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 25.01.2022.
