State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Joginder Kaur vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 18 February, 2016
First Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.17 of 2014
Date of institution : 08.01.2014
Date of decision : 18.02.2016
1. Joginder Kaur w/o Surjit Singh, plot no.52, Tersam Colony,
Ludhiana through power of attorney Gurdeep Singh.
2. Gurdeep Singh s/o Makhan Singh c/o 52, Tersam Colony,
Ludhiana.
.......Appellants/Complainants
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Haibowal U-
11, Ludhiana through Executive Engineer.
........Respondent/Opposite Party
First Appeal against order dated
19.11.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Mr. J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.A.K.Sharma, Advocate HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM, MEMBER:-
The appellants of this appeal (complainants in the complainant) have directed this appeal assailing order dated 19.11.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, dismissing the complaint of the complainants. F.A. No.17 of 2014 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants filed their consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that electrical domestic connection No.W52DF830415P was installed by the OP in their house. It was submitted that original owner had given power of attorney to Gurdeep Singh to take care of her property by duly registered attorney deed dated 13.06.2011. The premises were vacant and locked as such consumption charges for minimum use like lights in the night for taking care of the property were being paid by them. They received bill dated 17.09.2012 for 12667 units amounting to Rs.86,320/- against the old meter reading showing of 8043 and new reading showing 20910 units for the period 10.07.2012 to 17.09.2012. The complainants approached the OP and gave representation vide letter dated 20.09.2012 that bill received by them was very much in excess of their normal electric consumption bills. The OP advised them to deposit meter challenge fee of Rs.120/-, which was deposited on 20.09.2012 itself vide receipt No.918/587. The OP issued the request registration slip dated 20.09.2012 for completion of task till 5.10.2012, meant for change of challenged meter, but the said meter was changed by the OP on 20.11.2012. Removed meter was never packed or sealed in the card box under their signatures. The OP did not adopt the procedure as laid down in the regulations and acted against the norms which resulted in injustice to them as they were not well conversant with electricity rules. As per procedure laid down, OP was required to install checking meter parallel to disputed meter so that accuracy of the challenged meter can be examined while putting full load on both meters. But OP failed to abide by the instructions. If F.A. No.17 of 2014 3 there was any doubt against the working of the meter, it was duty of the OP to visit the premises of consumer in their presence. The meter was to be packed in card box where any theft of energy was suspected. Card boxes shall be sealed and duly signed by concerned JE/Assistant/AAE alongwith the consumer or their representative. It was submitted that the disputed meter was required be changed within a short period. However, the bill, which was issued by the OP, was inflated bill and it did not replace the said meter even after the deposit of the meter challenge fee and it was belatedly changed on 20.11.2014 in their absence. It was required to be sent to ME lab within a maximum period of 15 days from the date of removal and notice for checking the meter in the ME lab was required to be sent to them. OP did not adhere to the rules and regulations and rather it was threatening the complainants to pay the bill and refused to amend the bill. It was further submitted that the electricity consumption was measured as kilowatt hour (Kwh) or 'units' as per common language. One unit of energy is said to be consumed when electric appliance of 1000watts was operated for an hour. Electrical energy was measured by means of energy meter, which would be generally installed at the premises of every consumer. It was pleaded that against the load of 1.97 KW such heavy consumption of units would not be consumed as such sought issuance of directions to OP as under:
i. to issue the revised bill for the period from 7/12 to 9/12 ii. to restore the electricity supply iii. to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of causing deficient and negligent service.F.A. No.17 of 2014 4
3. Upon notice, OP filed its written reply and took preliminary objection that the complaint filed by the Gurdeep Singh-complainant No.2 was not having the authority to file the same. He was having deed of attorney of complainant No.1. It was submitted that demand of Rs.86320/- was raised through bill dated 17.09.2012 towards consumption of units actually consumed by the consumer of electric connection account no.DF83/0415 alongwith late payment surcharge total amounting to Rs.93799/-. The complainant challenged the working of meter on 20.09.2012 and deposited a sum of Rs.120/- and MCO was issued on the same day, vide MCO No.575607. The reason in the order for meter change was mentioned that meter was running fast as alleged at the time of deposit of fees. It was submitted that said meter was removed from the site and was duly packed in the card box with paper seals as per rules. However notices were issued to the complainant to come present in ME lab so that challenged meter be checked in their presence. But they did not come present in ME lab. On merits, it was admitted that the meter challenge fee of Rs.120/- was deposited on 20.09.2012, and due procedure was adopted by it, but complainants did not cooperate with the department and was avoiding to get the challenged meter checked in ME lab in their presence. There was no question of installing/checking meter at the house of the complainant. The said checking meters are to be installed in case of industrial connections as such the same was not required. It was submitted that in order to avoid payment of actual energy consumed by them, they had wrongly filed the present complaint.
4. District Forum allowed the parties to lead their evidence in F.A. No.17 of 2014 5 support of their averments.
5. Complainants tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainants, OP tendered in evidence the affidavit of Sh.Pardeep Gupta Ex.R-A alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainants. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum dated 19.11.2013, the complainants now appellants preferred this appeal against the same.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the District Forum, which was called at the stage of admission. From perusal of record, we find that this complaint was filed in District Forum on 22.01.2013, notice was sent to OP. Sh.A.S.Walia, Advocate appeared on 27.02.2013 on behalf of the OP. However, we find that OP after receipt of the notice from District Forum had issued registered final notice addressed to Rajinder Kaur dated 28.02.2013 during the pendency of the complaint in the District Forum by way of registered letter sent on 04.03.2013, to come present in ME lab. This notice was issued in order to substantiate that due notices were issued to the complainants and she and her above attorney had failed to comply with it and failed to attend the laboratory. We are unable to understand why this final notice was issued on 28.02.2013 during the pendency of the proceedings in District Forum. From perusal of Ex.C-5, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-2 the connected load of the meter is reflected as 1.97 Kilowatt.
When the said bill Ex.C-2 was received by the complainants, they F.A. No.17 of 2014 6 immediately gave representation to the OP on 20.09.2012 and deposited the amount of Rs.120/- as meter challenge fee protesting the issuance of bill for consumption of 12,867 units for the period of 10.07.2012 to 10.09.2012. As per the written statement filed by the OP, it was submitted that MCO for change of meter was issued on the same date vide Ex.R-6 and the connected load was shown as 1.97 Kilowatt in the said exhibit. From perusal of electricity supply regulations, we have looked into calculation how the meter having connected load of 1.97 Kilowatts will be able to consume maximum units in one hour and looked into the procedure to be followed by the OP. In case when meter is challenged consumptions appliance of 1,000 watts will be equivalent to 1 kilowatt and it will consume one unit in one hour. When the complainants received the bill of electricity supply, vide Ex.C-2 they immediately approached the OP and deposited meter challenge fee on 20.09.2012. The MCO to change the meter was issued on the same day. In order to ascertain whether the said electricity was actually consumed. We perused the written reply of OP to find out whether it had given any calculations to arrive at average consumption of electricity but it was not stated in their reply. In order to find out what would be the consumption of 1.97 Kilowatt load of meter when rounded off to 2 Kilowatt load. We have at our own end have done the calculations as under:-
If a connected load of a consumer is 2 kilowatt then if it runs for 24 hours, then total amount of electricity would be used will be 48 units for 24 hours i.e. 2 units for 2 kilowatt per hour i.e. 2 kilowatt 2X24hours is equivalent to 48 units. If we multiply this 48 unit for full 60 days period i.e. the billing F.A. No.17 of 2014 7 period then the units consumed in 2 kilowatts load would come to 48X60=2880 without any interruption in electric supply. But the consumption of electricity under Ex.C-2 for two months having a connected load of 1.97 kilowatt is to the extent of 12687 units which is beyond the norms of the electricity department or even as per above calculation.
7. As per the procedure to be followed for change of meters having defects or inoperative meter as per Regulation No. 64.5 & 64.6 pertaining to defective and inoperative meters. It is mentioned as under :-
64.5 Defective/Inoperative Meter:
64.5.1 If the meter is found to be running slow by more than 3% before replacing the meter the consumer should be asked to give a undertaking in writing that he will pay the additional charges, if the meter on actual testing in ME lab is found to be running slow.
64.6 After removing the old meter, it should be replaced with a new meter after charging the meter changing fee. The meter on removal should be sent to the ME Laboratory within a maximum period of 15 days and account of the consumer should be adjusted immediately on receipt of the test results from the ME lab.
As per regulation that if the old meter is removed it should be sent to ME lab within a maximum period of 15 days from the date of its removal. However, we find that in the instant case, the meter was neither running slow, but it was a defective meter and it jumped and was moving fast which the OP did not care to look into. Moreover, we F.A. No.17 of 2014 8 are of the view that OP was well aware of the facts that exorbitant bills were issued to the complainants. It was their duty to get the matter investigated at their own level and take appropriate action to check the working of meter or to justify the excessive consumption recorded by it. Apparently the meter recorded 1200 times the average consumption of the complainants bill dated 09.03.2012 wherein consumption of 17 units were reflected and the present bill was raised to the extent of 746 times of the above bill. Instead of investigating the matter, OP took a stand that complainants were required to deposit the billed amount and trying to avoid the payment of consumption of energy consumed by them.
8. As per instructions of OP, exceptional variation in consumption is to be entered in the variation register and thereafter AEE should investigate the same. But in this case this was not done. The plea of the OP that the disputed bill was payable just because these were based on actual recorded consumption of the meter is not tenable because no effort was made to look into the matter which amounted to deficiency in service. However, going through the reply of the OP they have not stated how the connection having a load of 1.97 Kilowatt would be having such a high metered consumption.
9. In view of the above observations the appeal of the complainant is accepted, impugned order of District Forum is set aside. However in the present situation at this stage, meter cannot be directed to be checked in the ME lab. OP is directed to withdraw the demand raised through its bills dated 12.09.2012, 27.11.2012 and 12.01.2013 and issue fresh bills for the same period on average monthly consumption based upon consumption of energy to bills F.A. No.17 of 2014 9 issued for the corresponding months of the previous year. We find that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony & harassment is awarded in favour of the complainant.
10. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 08.02.2016 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J.S. Klar) Presiding Judicial Member (Harcharan Singh Guram) Member February 18, 2016 RK 2