State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board City I ... vs Satwant Singh Son Of Late Sh. Karnail ... on 24 May, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 802 of 2007
Date of institution : 11.6.2007
Date of Decision : 24.5.2012
1. Punjab State Electricity Board City I Khanna through Sub Divisional
Officer.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, P.S.E.B. City 1, Khanna.
3. Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala.
....Appellants.
Versus
Satwant Singh son of Late Sh. Karnail Singh son of Sh. Waryam Singh son of
Sh. Punna Singh, resident of village & Post Office Harion Kalan, Tehsil Khanna,
Distt. Ludhiana.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 28.2.2007 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. S.K. Gupta, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opposite parties-PSEB (hereinafter called 'the appellants') against the order dated 28.2.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called 'the respondent') was accepted by the District Forum.
First Appeal no. 802 of 2007 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that an electric connection No. RF- 43/417 (DS) was installed in the name of his grand-father Sh. Waryam Singh and now the respondent was using the said electric connection in his house being a beneficiary user and was paying the bills regularly. His average consumption of electricity was below Rs. 1000/-. Respondent received bill dated 8.8.2005 by which a demand of Rs. 1900/- was raised as arrears and he paid the same. He also received a bill dated 10.10.2005 and a demand of Rs. 15,905/- was raised in which Rs. 14,580/- was mentioned as arrears in the column of sundry charges. The status of the meter was "O" i.e. O.K.. The demand of Rs. 14,580/- was illegal as no amount was outstanding against the respondent. The respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 1500/- on 25.10.2005 but the same was not deducted in the next bill. The appellant tested the meter in the M.E. Lab without any intimation/notice to the respondent and violated the regulations and circulars of the Board. The demand was arbitrary and illegal. Complaint was filed on the ground that the appellant was deficient in service and prayed that the appellant may be directed to revise the bills and to withdraw the demand of Rs. 15,666/- as well compensation of Rs. 20,000/- was prayed on account of deficiency in service and harassment.
3. Upon notice, the appellant replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable, respondent has no locus-standi to file the complaint as the electric connection was in the name of Waryam Singh. On merits, it was pleaded that the entire amount relates to regular consumption charges. The meter of the respondent was changed on his own request and the same was sent to M.E. Lab for its testing. On checking in M.E. Lab as per regulations and circulars, it was found that the meter was running fast 4.70% only and necessary refund in this regard had already been given to the respondent. The consumer was First Appeal no. 802 of 2007 3 informed regarding the accuracy of the meter but he failed to deposit the amount of regular consumption charges. Thereafter, P.D.C.O. was issued, which was effected on 24.2.2006. The complaint was false and frivolous, which was liable to be dismissed. The demand of arrears raised was legal and genuine and the respondent/consumer was liable to pay the same. All other allegations were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint and the demand of Rs. 14,580/- raised by the appellant was quashed. District Forum had also given liberty to both the parties to approach the Chief Electrical Inspector in terms of the rules and regulations, who would decide the matter afresh.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The appeal was filed by the appellants on the grounds that the respondent does not come under the definition of 'consumer' as the meter was in the name of Waryam Singh s/o Punna Singh and it was alleged by the respondent that he was his grand-father since had died but no application for the change of name was made by the respondent to the appellants, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants as the demand was raised from the respondent for the actual consumption charges for which the appellants were liable to recover, the meter was checked in M.E. Lab as per the affidavit of the respondent dated 20.9.2005 as in the same it was stated by the respondent that the meter may be checked in the M.E. Lab and he will be bound by the report of the M.E. Lab, as such, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside. First Appeal no. 802 of 2007 4
8. There is no dispute that the meter/electric connection was released in the name of Waryam Singh who was the grand-father of the respondent as he alleged in the complaint and this fact was not denied by the appellants. It is also alleged by the respondent that he was using the said connection and was paying the consumption charges/bills to the appellants and this fact was also not denied by the appellants. As such, the respondent was 'consumer' of the appellants being beneficiary user of the electric connection in dispute.
9. The respondent had challenged the bill dated 10.10.2005 in which a demand of Rs. 14,580/- was made. It was also alleged by the respondent that Rs. 14,405/- was added as arrears in the bill dated 10.12.2005 and again in the bill dated 12.2.2006 an amount of Rs. 15,606/- was shown as arrears when there was no amount outstanding against the respondent and he was paying the bills regularly.
10. On the other hand, the version of the appellants is that the demand of Rs. 14,580/- was raised as per the actual consumption by the respondent and the respondent was liable to pay the same but the same was not deposited by the respondent. As such, his connection was permanently disconnected on 24.2.2006. It is further alleged by the appellants that the accuracy of the meter in dispute was checked in the M.E. Lab on the request of the respondent and it was found that the meter was running 4.70% fast only. As per the report of the M.E. Laboratory, the refund of the amount due to fast running of the meter was given to the respondent as per the regulations of the Board.
11. We have perused the bill dated 10.10.2005 Ex. C-29.
12. In the said bill, the consumption is shown as 3501 units, 'SOP'(expenses of power supply) are shown as Rs. 13,199/- and Rs. 1320/- are shown as 'E.D.', Rs. 54/- as meter and service rentals are First Appeal no. 802 of 2007 5 mentioned in the above bill and a demand of Rs. 15,905/- was raised for the actual consumption. But the said amount was not deposited by the respondent with the appellants.
13. As per PSEB regulations, separate notice/bill is also required to be issued for previous charges but the respondent had violated its own Regulation No.124.1 of Electricity Supply Regulations, which is as under:-
"124.1 There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years of otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/Load or Demand Sucharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the Board employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/multiplication factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc. In all such cases, separate bills should be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges should not be clubbed in the current bills of the consumer."
14. On the request of the respondent the old meter of the respondent was replaced and was checked in the M.E. Lab in the absence of the respondent. It was found during the checking that the meter was running fast to the tune of +4.67% as per report of the M.E. Lab Ex. R-2.
15. We have also perused the affidavit of the respondent dated 20.9.2005 which is at page No. 28 of the appeal file by which the respondent has pleaded that:-
"1. He is consumer of electric connection No. RF-43/0417, which is installed in the name of his grand-father Waryam Singh s/o Panna Singh.
2. The electric meter due to some technical defect is running very fast and the excess consumption bill is sent to the deponent and he challenge the same.First Appeal no. 802 of 2007 6
3. The meter after checking may be replaced.
4. He will be bound by the checking and results of the M.E. Lab of the meter."
16. We have also perused the checking report of M.E. Lab, which is at page No. 73 of the District Forum file, which pertains to the checking of eight meters of different consumers but nowhere in the said report, it is mentioned that the meters were in sealed condition bearing the seals of the officials, who effected the M.C.O. and no name of any consumer is mentioned, who was present in the M.E. Lab at the time of checking of the above eight meters. It is also not alleged anywhere in the reply by the appellant that any notice was served upon the respondent by which the time, date, month and the name/place of the Laboratory was mentioned, which was mandatory as per Circular No. 10 of 2001 of the P.S.E.B. The respondent also not pleaded in his affidavit that the meter be checked in his absence.
17. The appellants also violated Circular No. 10 of 2001 in which it was specifically mentioned that the meter be checked in the presence of the consumer.
18. It is proved beyond any doubt that the appellants failed to follow its own procedure recommended by its authorities,as such, the order of the District Forum regarding quashing of the demand of Rs. 14,580/- is fully justified.
19. The order passed by the learned District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal being without any merit is dismissed and the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
20. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 14.5.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal no. 802 of 2007 7
21. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
May 24, 2012. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member
First Appeal no. 802 of 2007 8