DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.81 of 6.7.2020

                                      Decided on: 2.4.2024

Mohan Singh aged about 58 years son of Sh.Tirath Singh, resident of Model Town, Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd .The Mall Road, Patiala, District Patiala through its Chairman.
2. XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.
3. S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Patran Tehsil Patran District Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Ms.Gagandeep Gosal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY

                                       Sh.Asheen Khan, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal, counsel for OPs.  

 ORDER

                                      G.S.NAGI, MEMBER

1. The instant complaint is filed by Mohan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that complainant got installed an electricity connection bearing /c No.CF-69/2501/M in his aforesaid residential address bearing and is using and paying regularly all the arrears of electricity consumption since its installation. It is averred that the employees of OPs falsely prepared a recovery memo No.239 dated 11.2.2020 of Rs.84,516/- under the pretext of change of meter about which the complainant has no knowledge as no information for the same was ever sent to the complainant at any time regarding change of electricity meter. Also no signature was ever taken by the officials of the OPs from the complainant nor the meter was packed in the card board box and no seal was affixed in the presence of the complainant at the time of changing of the electricity meter. No information with regard to the checking of the meter in ME Lab was given to the complainant.
3. That after receipt of aforesaid recovery memo, complainant approached OPs and their Dispute Settlement Committee with the request to reduce the alleged recovery from his account but they refused to do so. That thereafter again OPs sent memo No.604 dated 1.6.2020 amounting to Rs.84510/- to the complainant and forced the complainant to deposit the same. That the act and conduct of the OPs is illegal, null and void and they have no right, title and authority to issue the alleged recovery memo to the complainant without any fault and also caused great mental tension and agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the complaint by giving direction to the OPs to withdraw the alleged recovery memos as mentioned above by waiving the illegal amounts; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till the date of actual payment; to pay Rs.5500/-towards costs of notice including litigation expenses; to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, depression due to loss suffered by the complainant.
4. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement having contested the complaint. Preliminary objections have been raised that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint before this Hon’ble Commission; that complainant has no come to this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and has intentionally concealed the material information.
5. On merits, it is admitted that an electric connection bearing account No.CF-69/2501/M is running at  the premises of the complainant. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.84516/- is outstanding against the complainant. It is admitted that OP sent a memo No.239 dated 11.2.2020 of Rs.84516/- and the meter of the complainant was changed by the official of the OPs.
6. That the real facts of the case are that the meter of the connection in question got burnt in the month of July 2019 and the meter was replaced on 15.9.2019 and a new meter was installed at the above said premises. That at the time of removing of burnt meter reading of the said meter was 28055 units. Thereafter the said burnt meter was packed in card board box and the same was taken to ME Lab Patiala by Sh.Bhagwan Sharma JE and the same was checked in ME Lab on 19.11.2019 in his presence by the SDO ME Lab and the reading of the meter was 28055 units but the complainant could not be charged up to that units. It is averred that the complainant was charged only up to 18136 units as per the last reading shown in the bill for the month of August,2019 so the actual consumption could not be taken during that period and there was a difference of 9919 units and as such the amount of Rs.84516/- on account of said 9919 units was chargeable from the connection in question. That thereafter a letter No.239 dated 11.2.2020 for amount of Rs.84516/- was sent with regard to the said connection but no amount has been deposited. It is further submitted that reading of the meter of the complainant was visible at the time of its removal and the same was changed as it got burnt. It is admitted that OPs again issued a memo No.604 dated 1.6.2020 of Rs.84510/- to the complainant. It is submitted that complainant moved an application to put his case before the Dispute Settlement Committee and his case was sent to the Division Office for the same and as per rules complainant is required to deposit 20% of disputed amount to put up his case before Disputes Settlement Committee. Accordingly OPs issued a letter No.1125 dated 19.8.2020 to the complainant for the deposit of 20% of above said amount but the complainant did not deposit the same. As such his case was not taken up before the Disputes Settlement Committee. It is stated to be wrong that act of the officials of OPs is illegal, null and void or that they have no right to issue the memo in question. The OPs have denied all other averments of the complainant and have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. Despite availing of ample opportunities complainant failed to tender the documents in evidence inspite of the same being already placed on record by the complainant at the time of filing of the complaint.
8. The ld. counsel for OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Darshan Singh, SDO, Ex.OPB affidavit of Bhagwan Sharma, JE alongwith documents Exs. OP1 to OP13 and closed the evidence.
9. The ld. counsel for the OPs has filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. The complainant is a consumer of the OPs and is consuming electricity against account No.CF-69/2501/M installed in his name at his premises. The complainant is paying his electricity bills regularly as per the bills produced by him which are Exs.C1 to C5 pertaining to the period 4/2019 to 6/2020. The complainant has alleged that a notice was served upon him vide memo No.239 dated 11.2.2020 for recovery of Rs.84,516/- due to difference in the units which was detected after the replacement of the meter. The complainant has alleged that the meter was changed without his knowledge and was checked by the OPs in his absence. The complainant was not associated with the process of either the change of the meter or checking of the meter. On receipt of notice complainant approached the OPs as well as the Disputes Settlement Committee of the OPs for settlement of the said dispute but no positive results were achieved. Subsequently another notice  bearing memo No.604 dated 1.6.2020 was served upon the complainant reiterating the demand so made by the OPs as per their earlier notice. The complainant approached the OPs repeatedly for withdrawal of the notice and also for the deduction in the amount so charged to the complainant but the issue was not resolved.
11. The OPs in their reply to the complaint and in the written arguments have disputed the claim of the complainant. The OPs have submitted that the meter of the complainant was burnt in the month of July 2019 and was replaced on 15.9.2019 as per the meter change order No.103/100158 dated 9.9.2019 ,Ex.OP1.The meter of the complainant was replaced on 15.9.2019 as per the said meter change order. The final reading of the meter at the time of removal of the meter was 28055 as recorded by JE Sh.Bhagwan Sharma.The meter was alleged to have been packed in a cardboard box after removal from the site and the same was sent to ME Lab for further checking vide challan No.126 dated 19.11.2019 which is Ex.OP2. The meter was checked in the ME Lab and the reading of the meter was found to be 28055.The OPs have further alleged that the complainant was billed up to a reading of 18136 whereas the actual reading of the meter was found to be 28055 and as such the complainant was billed for the difference of the units to the tune of 9919 and an amount of Rs.84516/- was charged to the complainant through sundry charges as per Ex.OP4. The complainant was then served the notice as per Ex.OP9 for deposit of Rs.84516/- on account of different of units so detected as above. The OPs have denied that the meter was not checked in the presence of the complainant. They have also denied the fact that the complainant never put up his case before the Disputes Settlement Committee as he failed to deposit 20% of the disputed amount inspite of notices Exs.OP12 and OP13 issued to the complainant for consideration of his case in the Disputes Settlement Committee. The OPs have argued that the notice issued to the complainant and amount charged as per the above notice is in order and is recoverable.
12. The OPs in their written statement as well as in the affidavits Exs.OPA & OPB of Sarv Shri.Darshan Singh, SDO, & Bhagwan Sharma, JE, of city Sub Division, Patran and in the written arguments have contended that the meter of the complainant got burnt in the month of July//2019 and was replaced on 15.9.2019. Sh.Bhagwan Sharma, JE in his affidavit has deposed that the meter was replaced on 15.9.2019 against MCO No.103/100158 dated 9.9.2019,Ex.OP1. The reading of the meter was 28055. He has further deposed that the meter was packed in a cardboard box. However, nowhere in his affidavit he has deposed that the meter was replaced in the presence of the complainant. His submissions that meter was packed in a card board box is also not tenable as the meter should have been replaced and packed in the presence of the complainant under his signatures (complainant) as the packing and sealing of meter without the signatures of complainant is pointless. He has further submitted that the meter was sent to the M.E.Lab for further checking vide challan No.126 dated 19.11.2019 as per Ex.OP2 where the reading of the meter was again found to be 28055. However, a perusal of the said meter challan further indicates that the complainant was never involved in the checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab. The OPs have themselves violated the regulations 21.3.6(e) of the Supply Code,2014 governing the conditions of the supply to the consumers as per which “it was mandatory that for the testing of a meter so removed from the premises the consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing through a notice at least three days in advance. In such cases the seals shall be removed/broken in the presence of the consumer or his authorized representative and testing should be done in the Lab of the Distribution Licencee within 15 days from the date of the removal of the meter from the premises of the consumer. However, such testing can be carried out by the Distributory Licency in the absence of consumer if he fails to associate with the testing even after issue of two registered reminders or gives his written consent for such testing in his absence. Signature of the consumer will be taken on the test results and copy of the same be supplied to the complainant”.
13.  In the instant case the meter which was installed outside the premises of the complainant was neither removed in the presence of the complainant nor sealed & packed under the signatures of the complainant or tested in the M. E. Lab in his presence nor any notice for removal of the meter was issued to the complainant. Also reading of the meter was not conveyed to the complainant at the time of removal of the meter. As such the OPs have failed to follow their own instructions.
14. It is also a fact that the meter of the complainant was installed outside his premises and all the bills produced by the complainant as Ex.C1 and C2(mentioned in the affidavit of complainant) and Ex.OP5 up to the period 4.6.2019 have been issued with O.K. status of the meter with latest reading as 17770 of 4.6.2019. The meter was installed outside the premises of the complainant and was well within the reach of the OPs. The reading of the meter was regularly taken by the OPs and there was no dispute with respect to the reading up to 4.6.2019 i.e. before the meter got burnt on 07/2009 the final bill that was issued to the complainant with OK status of the meter. It is not the case of the OPs that the complainant had concealed the reading of the meter as such we are of the opinion that reading recorded by the JE Bhagwan Sharma at the time of removal of the meter and at the time of checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab cannot be relied upon.
15. In view of the discussions above, we deem it fit to setaside the notice issued to the complainant vide memo No.239 dated 11.2.2020 Ex.OP9 vide which the complainant has been asked to deposit the amount of Rs.84516/- on account of difference in the units detected due to the checking of the meter in the M.E.Lab when the final reading was found to be 28055 whereas the complainant was earlier billed up to reading of 18136.We order accordingly.
16. However, case of complainant can also be considered under the remission policy regarding waiver of the pending bills approved by the Govt. of Punjab and circulated by the OPs vide Commercial Circular 21/2022 dated 3.8.2021 vide which it has been decided to waive off all the pending arrears up to 31.12.2021 and not paid up to 30.6.2022 in respect of the domestic consumers, as the amount which pertains to the consumer is pertains to the period of 2019 and was charged to the complainant on 11.2.2020 as per Ex.OP9.
17. The complaint is accordingly partly allowed with no order as to costs.       
18. The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                       Gagandeep Gosal

                                              Member                          President