Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/94

Raj Kumar Thappar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

M.S Sethi adv

01 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 94 dated 13.02.2019.                                                Date of decision: 01.08.2022.

Raj Kumar Thapar 64 years s/o. Ganga Dhar Thapar, r/o.2521, Rajesh Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant 

•  

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Aggar Nagar Unit-2, Ludhiana through AEE/Xen.                                                                                                                                                             …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection    Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he holds an electricity connection No.3002785045 under domestic category. Vide memo No.5421 dated 04.01.2019, the OP claimed an amount of Rs.26,148/- on the basis of checking dated 17.12.2018 in respect of the account of the complainant. The said amount of Rs.26,148/- has been raised on the basis of audit report dated 17.12.2018. On receipt of the demand notice, the complainant approached the officials of the OP to waive the demand of Rs.26,148/- which was not justified. According to the complainant, as per audit report dated 17.12.2018, the charges of Rs.26,148/- have been claimed on the premise that the meter was found to be dead on 08.03.2018. The account for the period from 20.04.2017 to 08.03.2018 was revised/overhauled. The complainant claims that the overhauling of the period from 20.04.2017 to 08.03.2018 is not justified as the old meter was not dead for the entire period. Rather, the meter was working and recording consumption. Moreover, it was not established that the meter was found dead vide LCR dated 03.12.2018.Thus, the demand raised on the basis of the audit report dated 17.12.2018 is illegal, null and void. In the end, it has been requested that the demand raised  vide memo No.5421 dated 04.01.2019 for Rs.26,148/- be set aside and quashed and the complainant may be refunded the amount, if got deposited and the OP be further made to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.7500/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The audit party vide its half margin No.92 dated 17.12.2018 pointed out that the account of the complainant was required to be overhauled for the period from 20.04.2017 to 08.03.2018 after taking into consideration the consumption data of the previous year. Accordingly, a demand of Rs.26,148/- was raised against the consumer as the meter of the consumer was changed on 08.03.2018 as it was dead stop. The OP also issued notice vide memo No.5421 dated 04.01.2019 for an amount of Rs.26,148/-. Earlier on 03.03.2018, the officials checked the meter of the electric connection of the complainant and found that the display of the meter was off and the meter was required to be changed and the accuracy of the meter was to be checked from the M.E. Lab. The complainant signed the checking report after admitting the same as correct. Accordingly, the OP checked the meter vide job order for device replacement vide application No.100005514709  dated 05.03.2018 effected on 08.03.2018 in the presence of the complainant. In the M.E. Lab,  the changed meter was checked  by Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement-2, Ludhiana and AEE ME Lb, Ludhiana in presence of the complainant vide challan No.1390 dated 04.09.2018. At the time of checking, it was found that the meter was defective and the accuracy of the meter could not be checked. Thus, the audit party rightly pointed out the recovery of Rs.26,148/- as per rules and regulations of the Electricity Act. Therefore, the demand was legal and genuine and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA1 along with documents Ex- C1 to Ex- C31 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. Parminder Singh, Senior Executive Engineer, Aggar Nagar Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R6 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

6.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the impugned demand of Rs.26,148/- is illegal, null and void and is liable to be quashed considering the fact that as per Electricity Supply code and Related Matters Regulations 2014  and Rule 21.5.2 of the said Regulations,  in case of defective/dead stop meter, the OP could order overhauling of the bill for the period the meter remained defective/dead stop and in case of burnt/stolen meter, the bill of the complainant could  be overhauled for the period of direct supply subject to maximum period of six months. The counsel for the complainant has further pointed out that from the said regulations, it is clear that the entire period of 20.04.2017 to 08.03.2018 was overhauled whereas in the bill Ex. C5 for January 2018, the status of the meter is shown to be Okay and only in the bill issued after January 2018 which is Ex. C22 for March 2018, the bill is issued for status of the meter was dead.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP has argued that the impugned demand of Rs.26.148/- has been rightly raised on the basis of the audit report Ex. R4 which has been prepared by taking into consideration the consumption of the previous year and the charges already deposited by the complainant have also been adjusted. The counsel for the OPs has further pointed out that as per report Ex. R4, the meter of the complainant was checked on 03.03.2018 on the request of the complainant himself and in the checking report Ex. R3, the meter was found to be dead stop and the accuracy could not be determined. Accordingly, the report Ex. R4 was prepared on the basis of the average consumption of the previous year and the demand of Rs.26,148/- was rightly raised.

8.                We have thoughtfully considered the above contentions of the counsel for the parties and have gone though the record carefully.

9.                As per Regulation 21.5.2 in case of a defective/dead stop meter, the account of the consumer is to be overhauled for the period the meter remained defective/dead stop whereas in the case of burnt or stolen meter, the account is to be overhauled subject to maximum period of six months. Thus, as in the case of the complainant, the meter was found to be dead stop, as per Regulation 21.5.2 the account of the complainant was to be overhauled only for the period the meter remained dead stop. It is evident that in the bills Ex. C8, Ex. C10, Ex. C12, Ex.C14, Ex C16, Ex. C18 and Ex. C20 for the period from January 2017 to January 2018, the status of the meter is recorded as okay. After January 2018, the bill Ex. C20 was issued in which the meter is shown to be defective/dead stop and it was changed subsequently and in the bill ex. C24 for May 2018, the status of the meter is shown as ‘Changed’. Therefore, the disputed period for which the account was required to be overhauled was from January 2018 to April 2018. The overhauling of the bill for the entire period of one year as has been shown as Ex. R4 cannot be justified being against specific provisions of Regulations 21.5.2 of Electricity Supply code and Related Matters Regulations 2014. In our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OP is directed to revise the demand by confining the period of overhauling from January 2018 to April 2018. Any amount already deposited against the demand of Rs.26,148/- would be adjusted in the revised overhauling bills.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to OP to revise the impugned demand by confining the overhauling of bills from January 2018 to April 2018. The OP is further directed that any amount already deposited against the demand of Rs.26,148/- would be adjusted in the revised overhauling bills. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Raj Kumar Vs PSPCL                                           CC/19/94   

Present:       Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to OP to revise the impugned demand by confining the overhauling of bills from January 2018 to April 2018. The OP is further directed that any amount already deposited against the demand of Rs.26,148/- would be adjusted in the revised overhauling bills. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:01.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.