State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. vs Gopal Mohan on 1 February, 2016
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 448 of 2014
Date of institution: 16.4.2014
Date of Decision: 1.2.2016
S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Power House Road (Civil
Lines Sub Division), Bathinda.
Appellant/OP
Versus
Gopal Mohan s/o Krishan Kumar s/o Bhagwan Dass, r/o 22247-C, St. No.
1, Shant Nagar, Bathinda.
Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated 21.1.2014
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Sidharth Gupta, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellant/Op(hereinafter referred as Op) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 21.1.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda(hereinafter First Appeal No. 448 of 2014 2 referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 414 dated 23.9.2013 vide which the complaint filed by respondent/complainant(hereinafter referred as complainant) was allowed and Op was directed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 88,173/- shown as sundry charges shown in the bill Ex. C-1 dated 10.9.2013 and also pay Rs. 15,000/- as cost and compensation. The order was to be complied within 45 days.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against Op on the averments that he is consumer of Op having electricity connection bearing A/c No. B12BR670399K installed at his residential premises bearing House No. 22247-C, Street No. 1, Shant Nagar, Bathinda for the last more than 9 years. However, the electricity meter installed in his premises became defective and he used to pay the bill under protest with the prayer to install the correct electricity meter. The detail of the bills paid by him was as under:-
Sr. Bill No. Receipt Period Amount
No. No.
From To
1. Bill was not 99 June 2012 July 2012 38,000.00
issued
2. Bill was not 342 June 2012 July 2012 3,900.00
issued
3. 5653 331 04.07.12 04.09.12 33,720.00
4. 151 Feb. 2013 Mar. 2013 19,850.00
5. 177 April 2013 May 2013 10,600.00
6. 25301 108 June 2013 July 2013 45,330.00
3. Complainant vide letter dated 29.8.2012 with self affirmation affidavit requested Op not to charge on the basis of average and to install the correct electricity meter at the premises but First Appeal No. 448 of 2014 3 to no effect and they continued to illegally charge the bill on the basis of average instead of installing the correct meter. Op had replaced faulty meter in the month of September, 2012 but the same was faulty. He again lodged the complaint on 16.11.2012 with the request to replace the meter. He again sent an application dated 20.6.2013 for changing the faulty meter and not to charge the electricity consumption on the basis of average. The meter was changed in the first week of August, 2013. Op issued the bill for the recovery of Rs. 1,20,080/- payable by 23.9.2013 through cheque. Complainant approached Op not to recover this bill on the basis of average as the meter was faulty, which was not tested from M.E. Lab till date, which was only within the purview of Chief Electrical Inspector, Government of India in view of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act. Further this amount was not recoverable as the complainant family was consisting of his parents, wife and minor children and grand mother. Whereas grand-mother and elder brother and his wife had shifted to Sirsa about 2 years back. There was no function or any kind of celebration to use the electricity. The act of Ops not to change the defective meter and to install the correct meter and to charge the bill on average basis is unjustified amounted to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint with a direction to Op to refund a sum of Rs. 2,71,480/- illegally charged on the basis of average in violation of Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, not to recover Rs. 1,20,080/- on the basis of bill dated 10.9.2013 unless the matter of meter being defective is finally decided. They be further directed to pay Rs. First Appeal No. 448 of 2014 4 50,000/- on account of physical, mental and financial harassment and pay Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. Complaint was contested by Op, who filed written reply taking legal objections that complainant had no cause of action to file this complaint; complainant had concealed the material facts from the Forum, complainant had not come before the Forum with clean hands and had intentionally concealed the material facts. On merits, it was admitted that complainant was having electricity connection bearing A/c No. B12 BR670399K installed in his residential premises as referred in the complaint. It was denied that the complainant used to pay bills under protest. It was also denied that Op did not change the meter on the request of the complainant. Complainant vide letter dated 29.8.2012 alongwith affidavit had requested Op not to charge on the basis of average and to install the correct electricity meter at his premises. At certain stages, the consumption had to be charged on average basis. It was denied that the complainant was billed for excess and at exorbitant rates. The meter of the complainant was replaced in September, 2012. Meter bearing No. 5234 was challenged by the complainant vide his application dated 29.8.2012 and had deposited the required meter challenge charges of Rs. 450/-. Accordingly, meter change order bearing No. B12/M/12/7344 dated 31.8.2012 was issued and it was got effected on 6.9.2012 by Er. Parminder Singh, JE. Removed meter bearing No. 5234 was packed in Card Board Box and further sealed with the paper seal No. 24086 dated 6.9.2012 for checking the meter in M.E. Lab and new electronic meter No. 1103729 was installed in place of the old meter. First Appeal No. 448 of 2014 5 Complainant was issued consumption bill on the average basis for the period 5.9.2012 to 11.11.2012 with meter status code as "E/TMMC". Another bill on the basis of average was issued for the period 11.11.2012 to 10.1.2013 with meter status code as "O/EMMC". The Meter Reader while taking the reading for the period 10.1.2013 to 16.3.2013 found that display of the meter had gone defective and was in stopped condition, therefore, the complainant was issued the bill for the period 10.1.2013 to 16.3.2013 on average basis with meter status code as "D". The complainant was again issued bill on average basis for the period 16.3.2013 to 14.5.2013 with meter status code "D". MCO bearing No. B12/M/13/08886 dated 28.6.2013 was issued. It was got effected on 20.8.2013. The complainant was issued bill for the period 14.5.2013 to 18.7.2013 on average basis. New meter bearing No. 019540 was got installed in place of the old meter, as such, the complainant was again issued the bill for the period 18.7.2013 to 10.9.2013 on average basis with meter status code as "D". A bill for a sum of Rs. 1,20,080/- was payable by 23.9.2013. It was further averred that complainant was duly intimated about the time and date for checking the meter in M.E. Lab. The packed and sealed meter was taken to ME Lab on 12.10.2012 by Dr. Ranjit Singh, JE, vide challan No. 61/12-13. Mr. Ashok Kumar, representative/employee of the complainant was present in the ME Lab and meter was got checked in his presence and he signed the attendance register of M.E. Lab. The meter was opened from the sealed card board box in the presence of Er. H.S. Dhaliwal, Sr. XEN, ME Division, Bathinda, Er. Ranjit Singh, AEE, Enforcement, Er. First Appeal No. 448 of 2014 6 Gurcharan Singh, JE, ME Division and Ashok Kumar. The meter was checked in the laboratory and it was found that the meter was dead on red phase so it was running slow by 33.26%. During the Audit of Commercial Division No. 1 for the period 10/12 to 3/13 Audit party took a recovery of Rs. 51,629/- in the account of the complainant by overhauling the account for the last six months from 31.8.2012 by over hauling his bill for the last six months from 31.8.2012. The Audit party while checking and over hauling the account of the complainant found that average charged in the account of the complainant was less than the average consumption and took over an recovery of Rs. 36,544/-. A sum of Rs. 88,173/- was charged in the bill as sundry charges pertaining to the overhauled period. No excess charges were taken from the complainant. There was no merit in the complaint. It be dismissed.
5. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence bills and receipts Exs. C-1 to & C-9, letters EXs. C-10 to 12, self declaration Ex. C-13, letter Ex. C-14, complainant's affidavit Ex. C-15. On the other hand, Ops had tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Jass Singh, SDO Ex. Op-1/1, affidavit of Er. Ranjit Singh, J.E. Ex. Op-1/2, MCO Ex. Op-1/3, store challan Ex. Op-1/4, list/attendance register Ex. Op-1/5, MCO Ex. Op- 1/6, audit reports Exs. Op-1/7 & 8, letter Ex. Op-1/9, bill ledgers EXs. Op-1/10 to 12, consumption data Ex. Op-1/13, sundry register Ex. First Appeal No. 448 of 2014 7 Op-1/14, affidavit of. Er. H.S. Dhaliwal, Sr. XEN Ex. Op-1/15, meter working/checking report Ex. Op-1/15.
7. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written version filed by OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum by observing that when the new meter was installed by the Op it was not duly tested and checked and the bill was sent on average basis and under Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, Chief Electrical Inspector appointed by the Government of India was only authority to decide the basis of average or to impose the penalty.
8. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/Op has filed the present appeal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the appellant.
10. It was submitted in the written arguments that the respondent/complainant was having domestic connection bearing No. B12/M/12/7344 dated 31.8.2012 with sanctioned load of 19.99 KW and was having meter No. 5234, which was changed on 6.9.2012 by Er. Parminder Singh and old meter was removed and packed in the card board box bearing paper seal No. 24086 dated 6.9.2012 and new meter No. 1103729 was installed and the meter was sent to M.E. Lab vide challan No. 61/12-13 dated 12.10.2012 and it was checked in the presence of Sh. Ashok Kumar, employee/representative of the complainant. On checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab, it was found that the meter was dead on red phase and meter was running slow First Appeal No. 448 of 2014 8 by 33.26%. In the meantime, the complainant was issued bill on average basis. During the Audit of the Commercial-1, Sub Division for the period 10/12 to 3/13 Audit party noticed the challenged meter bearing No. 5234 and declared running slow by 33.26% by M.E. Lab and accordingly, Audit Party overhauled the account of the complainant for last six months prior to the date when meter bearing No. 5234 was changed i.e. 6.9.2012 and calculated the recovery of RS. 51,629/-. The Audit Party further noticed that average charged in bills on average basis from 5.9.2012 to 10.9.2013 was much less under Regulation 21.4(g)(ii) of Supply Code and Related Matters, 2007 and Audit party calculated the recovery on this amount of Rs. 49,557/- and the same was intimated to the office of SDO, Commercial-I, PSPCL vide letter No. 106 dated 22.5.2013(Ex. Op- 1/8). Inspite of issuance of Memo bearing No. 1880 dated 24.6.2013, complainant did not deposit the amount of Rs. 88,173/- shown as sundry charges, which was challenged before the District Forum. The District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant under Section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910, which stand already repelled by Electricity Act, 2003 and under the new Act, there is no provision under Section 26(6) as relied by the District Forum.
11. No doubt that Electricity Act, 1910 stands repelled, therefore, the order passed by the District Forum could not be under Section 26 of the Electricity Act, 1910. However, under the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission, Electricity Supply and Related Matters Regulation 2007 (for short 'Regulation 2007') or under these regulations, Regulation 21.4(g), it has been provided that First Appeal No. 448 of 2014 9 if a meter on testing is found to be beyond the limits of accuracy as prescribed in the Regulations notified by the Central Electricity Authority under Section 55 of the Act, the electricity charges for all categories of consumer will be computed in accordance with the said test results for a period of six months immediately preceding date of test or the date of defective meter is removed or the date of receipt of request from the consumer. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum cannot be rendered justified or unjustified merely because of the referring the wrong section of the Act.
12. Adverting to the facts of the case, meter No. 5234 was installed in the premises of the complainant, which was removed on 6.9.2012, packed there and was inspected in the M.E. Lab on 12.10.2012 and it was found that red phase was dead and meter was running slow by 33.26%.
13. Now what is the evidence of the parties on the record. Meter Change Order is Ex. Op-1/3. At that time, the reading was 132089. Op has not placed on the record the proceedings of the removed meter. This report does not refer that the meter was packed in a card board box and that the box was sealed with paper seal bearing No. 24086 dated 6.9.2012. It reveals only the writing and signatures of one Krishan Kumar. Therefore, the proceedings with regard to the removal of the meter after that it was packed in a card board box and was sealed with the paper seal referred above was missing in the report Ex. Op-1/3. Ex. Op-1/4 is the Store Challan, which was signed by one Ashok Kumar but it has not been explained who is Ashok Kumar. In case the meter was taken for inspection on First Appeal No. 448 of 2014 10 12.10.2012 then a reference has been made to Ex. Op-1/6. However, no notice was issued to the complainant Gopal Mohan(Krishan) for 12.12.2012 when the meter was taken to the Laboratory for inspection. According to Regulation 21.4(a) of Regulations, 2007, there is a provision that the licensee will have a right to test any meter and related apparatus installed at a consumer's premises if there is a reasonable doubt about its accuracy and the consumer will provide the Licensee all necessary assistance in conducting the test. The consumer will have the right to be present during such testing. Therefore, in case it was inspected, it was inspected in the absence of complaint. It has been stated that the meter of the complainant was dead on the red phase and was running slow by 33.26%. The report is Ex. Op-1/16. But as stated earlier, when no notice was issued to the complainant to appear before the M.E. Lab for test on 12.10.2012 and it has not been explained who is Ashok Kumar. It cannot be said that the inspection in the M.E. Lab was conducted in the presence of the complainant or his representative, in that way the account overhauled by the OP for recovering of Rs. 51,629/- is not recoverable because the report of M.E. Lab cannot be read against the complainant in view of the reasons stated above.
14. It is further argued that the average was much less then the actually charged for the period 5.9.2012 to 10.9.2012. According to these Regulations 21.4(g) (i) & (ii) as relied upon by Op, the average bill can be sent only for a period of six months from the date of removal of the defective meter i.e. 6.9.2012 but Ops had charged average for the period of one year. The counsel for Op was unable to First Appeal No. 448 of 2014 11 explain how and under what regulations, Op had charged the average for a period of more than six months but he was unable to refer any regulation under which they can charge the bill on average basis for a period of more than six months. It has been specifically mentioned in the complaint by the complainant that his older brother's family and grand-mother had shifted to Sirsa, therefore, number of family members has decreased and consequently, his consumption was decreased, therefore, for a period of one year, average bill cannot be charged from the complainant on the previous consumption. At the most for a period of six months, the bill can be charged on the basis of previous average consumption and for next six months it should be charged on the basis of average consumption in the succeeding year. In these circumstances, the order passed by the District Forum for withdrawl of the bill of sundry charges of Rs. 88,173/- is correct and that Op can overhaul the bill according to observations referred above.
15. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
16. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 7,500/- with this Commission in the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court. First Appeal No. 448 of 2014 12
17. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by the appellant to respondent/complainant within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
18. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.1.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
February 1, 2016. (Surinder Pal Kaur)
as Member