State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs Kuldip Singh on 30 September, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.274 of 2022
Date of institution : 07.04.2022
Reserved On : 01.09.2022
Date of decision : 30.09.2022
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its SDO (Commercial),
Civil Lines Sub Divn., outside Hall Gate, Amritsar (Punjab).
....Appellant/Opposite Party
Versus
Kuldip Singh son of Late Sh. Surjan Singh, resident of 122-A, Rani Ka
Bagh, Amritsar (Punjab): Mobile:99889-61639.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 24.12.2021 (wrongly mentioned
in appeal as '04.01.2022') passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-
For the appellant : Dr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate.
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
Appellant/opposite party i.e. Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of First Appeal No.274 of 2022 2 the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the order dated 24.12.2021 (wrongly mentioned in appeal as '04.01.2022') passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant namely Kuldip Singh was allowed and the impugned Memo No.4802/03 dated 14.09.2018 for ₹2,48,148/- was set aside. The appellant/opposite party was held entitled to charge from the complainant only on the basis of current consumption charges for the period for which the complainant did not pay the bills. The opposite party was directed to pay compensation to the tune of ₹10,000/- and ₹3,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The compliance of the order was to be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
2. It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case which are necessary for decision of the present appeal as made out by the respondent/complainant before the District Commission while filing CC No.769 of 2018 are that the father of the complainant was the owner of property bearing No.122-A and he obtained a domestic electric connection bearing Account No.GT16/1813. After death of his father, the complainant became owner of said property and he was using that First Appeal No.274 of 2022 3 connection. After the death of his father, the complainant applied for change of name in the electric connection being the legal heir of deceased father and deposited an amount of ₹2,820/- with the opposite party and the name of the complainant was changed vide order (Ex.C-
2). Thereafter, the complainant had been paying the electricity bills regularly as per the bills issued by the opposite party and nothing was due except the demand raised by them. It was further mentioned in the complaint that the meter was removed on 23.08.2018 and it was replaced with a new one. However, at the time of removal of the meter, no discrepancy of any sort was found by the opposite party. The meter was taken away in loose condition without packing and sealing. Thereafter, the complainant received Memo dated 14.09.2018 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer for an amount of ₹2,48,148/- (Ex.C-3). It was alleged in the said Memo that as per M.E. Lab. Checking Report dated 04.09.2018, the meter was found dead. Further it was mentioned therein that as per the consumption data supplied along with the Memo, the status of the meter was 'OK' and the bills were issued with 'O' code, which were paid by the complainant regularly. The copy of consumption data was annexed as Ex.C-4 and bills were annexed as Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6. In case of defective or dead meter, the amount was to be recovered for a maximum period of six months prior to detection of defective meter but the opposite party claimed the amount of the period prior to three years i.e. from October, First Appeal No.274 of 2022 4 2015 to October, 2018. The concerned authorities were approached and this fact was brought to their notice. Even the receipt of the earlier payment was also showed but there was no effect thereof. It was further mentioned that in case the said amount was not paid, the connection was to be disconnected permanently.
4. Stating to be a case of 'deficiency in service' on the part of the opposite party and on the basis of allegations due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment, the complaint was filed with the prayer for issuing directions to the opposite party to withdraw the demand as raised vide Memo No.4082/03 dated 14.09.2018 for an amount of ₹2,48,148/-. Further prayer was also made for issuing directions to the opposite party to issue fresh bill based on the actual consumption and also to issue regular bills in future on the basis of actual reading. An amount of ₹50,000/- was claimed as compensation as well as ₹22,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. Notice in the said complaint was issued to the appellant/opposite party and they filed written reply wherein certain preliminary objections were raised stating that there was no locus standi to file the complaint which is not maintainable. The averments made in the complaint were specifically denied. It was also mentioned in the reply that the meter was changed and it was packed in a card board box and was sealed in the presence of the complainant. Thereafter, a new meter was installed by the officials of the opposite party. The First Appeal No.274 of 2022 5 removed meter was checked and it was found dead and final reading was 19737. As per the consumption data, the reading of the meter was 31637 as on 01.11.2015 and the meter was found dead on 09.11.2015. The demand of an amount of ₹2,48,148/- was raised vide Memo dated 07.09.2018. The allegations of 'deficiency in service' on the part of the opposite party were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
6. On appraisal of contents of the complaint filed by the complainant as well as written reply filed by the opposite party and also on hearing the arguments raised by both the side and by considering the relevant documents available on the record, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 24.12.2021. The relevant portion of the impugned order as mentioned in Para-10 is reproduced as under:
"10. In view of the above discussion and the law as discussed above, we allow the complaint and set aside the impugned memo No. 4802/03 dated 14.9.2018 for Rs.2,48,148/-. The opposite party is only entitled to charge the complainant on the basis of current consumption charges for the period for which the complainant has not paid the bills. The complainant has suffered a lot of mental as well as physical agony due to raising the said demand of Rs. 2,48,148/- without any basis, as such the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant .Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is First Appeal No.274 of 2022 6 ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission."
7. Said order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the District Commission been challenged by the appellant/opposite party by way of filing the present appeal by raising a number of arguments.
8. There was a delay of 55 days in filing of the appeal. M.A. No.513 of 2022 was filed for condonation of delay which was supported by the affidavit of Sh. Mohit, SDO Commercial, Civil Lines Sub Division, PSPCL, Amritsar.
9. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same was allowed vide order dated 19.04.2022 and the delay in filing of the appeal was condoned.
10. Dr. Sukant Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submits that the District Commission while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration the averments/contents of the reply and the impugned order has been passed contrary to the facts of the case and the relevant provisions of law as applicable in the present case. The complaint is based on misstatement of facts as it was wrongly mentioned in the complaint that at the time of removal of the meter, no discrepancy of any type was found by the officials of appellant and the meter was taken in loose condition without packing and sealing. The opposite party had stated/submitted before the District Commission that the meter was duly First Appeal No.274 of 2022 7 packed in a card board box and sealed in the presence of the complainant and thereafter a new meter was installed in place of old meter. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Commission that the complainant has signed a consent letter (Annexure A-1) produced with the appeal and it was mentioned therein that he had no objection in removing the meter and checking of the same in the ME Lab. in his absence and as such the findings recorded by the District Commission are contrary to facts and evidence. The respondent/complainant remained present at the time of removal of the meter and even at the time of testing thereof and wrong averments have been made in the complaint. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that wrong finding has been recorded by the District Commission that the meter of the complainant was got tested in the ME Lab. in the absence of the complainant and no consent was obtained. The word 'admittedly' has been recorded in the impugned order whereas no such averment was ever made in the complaint. It has further been wrongly observed by the District Commission that the demand raised by the appellant/opposite party on the basis of ME Lab. report was not legal and was liable to be set aside whereas this finding is also contrary to the consent letter dated 23.08.2018. It has further been argued that the impugned Memo dated 14.09.2018 was raised on the basis of consumption data of the respondent/complainant but the same was not considered by the District Commission while passing the First Appeal No.274 of 2022 8 impugned order. The electricity consumption bills which were issued to the complainant between November/2015 to January/2018 reflected 'O' code but there was no relevancy when the meter was removed and the same was tested in the ME Lab. The electricity bills were based on the report of the meter readers and these factors have not been taken into consideration while making observations that the meter was burnt and dead. At the end, learned counsel submits that the respondent/complainant was having alternative remedy under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the rules framed thereunder and the District Commission should have relegated the complainant to avail that alternative remedy but still without saying anything on this issue, the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of case M/s Prem Cottex v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. 2021 (4) RCR (Civil) 422 (SC) in support of his arguments.
11. Mr. Sukhandeep Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party and also submits that the impugned order was passed by the District Commission on the basis of proper appreciation of evidence. The arguments raised by both the parties were considered and detailed findings have been recorded. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant never signed the First Appeal No.274 of 2022 9 consent letter and it appears that the same has been forged. The complainant is ready to give his specimen signatures for the purpose of any comparison. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the respondent/complainant is similar to the case titled as Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. Sham Sunder 2006 (1) CPC 103, wherein all the relevant provisions have been discussed in detail. Learned counsel also submits that the detailed provisions have been mentioned in the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2014 (Up to 7th Amendment). Those provisions have not been followed by the opposite party while raising the demand vide impugned Memo. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the impugned order is liable to the upheld.
12. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the impugned order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the District Commission and all other documents available on the file.
13. Facts regarding filing of the complaint by the complainant before the District Commission, reply thereof filed by the appellant/opposite party, allowing of said complaint and thereafter the filing of the present appeal by the appellant/opposite party are not disputed.
14. Before going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to discuss the relevant provisions/Regulations issued by the PSPCL from time to time. Regulation No.21.3.6 of the Electricity Supply Code and First Appeal No.274 of 2022 10 Related Matters Regulations 2014 (up to 7th Amendment) deals with testing of Inaccurate Meters and the same is reproduced as under:
"Regulation No. 21.3.6: Testing of Inaccurate Meters:
a) The distribution licensee shall have the right to test any consumer meter and related equipment, either at site or in the laboratory, if there is a reasonable doubt about the accuracy and the consumer shall co-operate with the distribution licensee in conducting the test. The consumer shall have the right to be present during such testing. A copy of the test results indicating the accuracy of the meter shall be provided to the consumer.
b) A consumer may also request the distribution licensee to test the meter, if he doubts its accuracy. The distribution licensee shall undertake such testing either at site or in the laboratory within seven (7) days on payment of fee by the consumer as specified in the Schedule of General Charges approved by the Commission. The standard reference meter of better accuracy class than the meter under test shall be used for site testing of consumer meter upto 650 volts. The testing of consumer meter above 650 volts should cover entire metering system including CTs, VTs and may be carried out in the laboratory. The onsite testing may be carried out as per regulations 18(2) of CEA (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations, 2006, as amended from time to time. A copy of the test results indicating the accuracy of the meter shall be provided to the consumer immediately.
c) If after testing, the meter is found to be inaccurate then the fee deposited in accordance with para (b) above shall be refunded by adjustment in the electricity bills for the immediately succeeding months. In case the meter is found to be correct then such fee shall be forfeited by the distribution licensee.
d) In case a consumer is not satisfied with the site testing of the meter installed in his premises or the meter cannot be tested by the distribution licensee at site then the meter shall be removed and packed/sealed in the presence of consumer or occupier of the premises for testing in the laboratory and another duly tested meter shall be installed at the premises of such a consumer. In the event the distribution licensee or the consumer apprehends tampering of meter and/or its seals then the packing containing the meter shall be jointly sealed by the distribution licensee and the consumer/occupier of the premises.
(e) In case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the licensee's laboratory, the consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing through a notice at least three (3) days in advance. In such cases, the seals shall be removed/ broken in the presence of the consumer or his/her authorised representative and testing undertaken in the laboratory of the distribution licensee or any accredited laboratory within fifteen (15) days from the date of removal of meter from consumer's premises.
However, such testing can be carried out by the distribution licensee in the absence of consumer if he/she fails to associate with testing First Appeal No.274 of 2022 11 even after issue of two registered reminders or he/she gives his/her written consent for such testing without his/her presence. The signature of the consumer, or his authorized representative, if present, would be obtained on the test results sheet and a copy thereof supplied to the consumer. If the meter is found to be inaccurate or tampered, the same shall be re-packed & sealed and kept in safe custody till disposal of case in order to preserve evidence."
15. Regulation No.21.5.2 of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2014 (up to 7th Amendment) deals with Defective (other than inaccurate)/dead stop/burnt/stolen meters, which is reproduced as under:
"21.5.2 Defective (other than inaccurate)/Dead Stop/Burnt/Stolen Meters:
The accounts of a consumer shall be overhauled/billed for the period meter remained defective/dead stop subject to maximum period of six months. In case of burnt/stolen meter, where supply has been made direct, the account shall be overhauled for the period of direct supply subject to maximum period of six month. The procedure for overhauling the account of the consumer shall be as under:
a) On the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year.
b) In case the consumption of corresponding period of the previous year as referred in para (a) above is not available, the average monthly consumption of previous six (6) months during which the meter as functional, shall be adopted for overhauling of accounts.
c) If neither the consumption of corresponding period of previous year (para-a) nor for the last six months (para-b) is available then average of the consumption for the period the meter worked correctly during the last 6 months shall be taken for overhauling the account of the consumer.
d) Where the consumption for the previous months/period as referred in para (a) to para (c) is not available, the consumer shall be tentatively billed on the basis of consumption assessed as per para -
4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual First Appeal No.274 of 2022 12 consumption recorded in the corresponding period of the succeeding year.
e) The energy consumption determined as per para (a) to (d) above shall be adjusted for the change of load/demand, if any, during the period of overhauling of accounts."
16. Mode of payment of arrears not originally billed is provided under Instruction No.93.1 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual (Updated till 30.06.2017) which is reproduced as under:
"93. PAYMENT OF ARREARS NOT ORIGINALLY BILLED:
93.1: There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months./years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/unauthorized use of electricity or demand / load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL 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 shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges shall be shown as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills shall be issued separately giving complete details of the charges in regard to theft cases, slowness of meters, wrong connections of the meter and unauthorized of use electricity etc. In such cases the copy of relevant instructions under which the charges have been levied shall also be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of cases by consumer forums if approached by the consumer."
17. On perusal of said provision, it is clear that in certain cases, where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous period as arrears, the same may be on account of under assessment or unauthorized use of electricity or due to fault/negligence of PSPCL employees or even due to some defect in the metering First Appeal No.274 of 2022 13 equipment or due to application of wrong tariff or even due to any mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices, the separate bills are required to be issued by giving complete details of the charges so levied. Such charges are considered as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills are required to be issued separately by giving complete details of the charges even in case where allegations of theft are there or slowness in the meter or wrong connections of meter and unauthorized use of electricity. In such situations, the copy of relevant instructions is required to be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of the case but in the present case, it was not done. Neither the details were supplied nor any intimation thereof was given to the complainant. Even no supplementary bills were issued by giving complete details of the charges. The meter was changed/replaced on the ground that it was dead but without giving any details or even supplying any instruction and without issuing separate bills whereas supplementary bills should have been issued with all details.
18. Further, Instruction No.93.2 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual (Updated till 30.06.2017) relates to the period of limitation as provided u/s 56(2) of the Act. As per said provision, the amount sought to be recovered cannot be recovered after a period of two years from the date when such amount became due for the first time, unless the same has been shown/reflected continuously as First Appeal No.274 of 2022 14 recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied. Meaning thereby, such amount which is sought to be recovered is to be reflected continuously as arrears of charges for the electricity supplied and maximum period for recovery is two years. In case, the consumer finds any difficulty to make payment of arrears in lump sum, he/she may move application for allowing the payment of such arrears in easy instalments. In such a situation, a representation is required to be made from the consumer side within the grace period of 10/15 days of receipt of the bill. A notice to this effect is required to be incorporated on the bill itself.
19. Instruction No.93.3 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual is relevant in this context, which is reproduced as under:
"93.3 Allowing Installments for Supplementary Assessment:
The consumer may sometimes find it difficult to make payment of such arrears in lump sum and may make representation for allowing the payment of such arrears to be made in installments. Such a representation must come from the consumer within the grace period i.e. within 10/15 days of the receipt of the bill. A notice to this effect shall be incorporated on the bill itself. However, it may be clarified that the representation shall not entitle stay to the consumer from the payment of installment(s). In fact the consumer seeking installments shall deposit not less than 25% of the billed amount so as to show his earnestness to pay the assessed amount in installments.
20. It is also relevant to mention here that in case any arrears are due, the responsibility of the same is required to be fixed as to who was the officer/official responsible for the delay. The loss so suffered by First Appeal No.274 of 2022 15 the department be recovered from the concerned employee/employees as per opinion/observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as expressed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported as 2010 (5) SCC 459 and Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta AIR 1994 SC
787. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.K. Gupta's case (supra) held as under:
"When the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payers' money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries."
21. As per Regulation No.21.4 (d), in case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the licensee laboratory, the consumer is required to be informed of the proposed date of testing at least 7 days in advance. The signatures of the consumer or his authorized representative, if present, would be obtained on the test result sheet and copy thereof is required to be supplied to the consumer or his representative.
22. Before adding sundry charges in electricity bills of the complainant or issuing any Memo raising the demand, not only show- First Appeal No.274 of 2022 16 cause notice is required to be issued to the consumer before imposing penalty but the provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was also required to be served upon the consumer/complainant, as has been observed in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v. Dinesh Sharma 2016 (2) CLT 429, which is reproduced as under:
"7. This argument is of no use. The appellants have failed to show any notice issued to the complainant before imposing the penalty. Our Hon'ble High Court has also opined in Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is required before imposing the penalty and an order about recovery should be passed after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person who was likely to be affected thereby. In the present case, the appellants-O.Ps. have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant. In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency in service. Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case."
23. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the authority concerned to satisfy itself regarding the accuracy of a meter before it is installed at the consumer premises. The Distribution Licensees are required to set up some accredited testing laboratories or utilize the services of other testing laboratories, if necessary. Thereafter, the necessary action was required to be taken if necessary. After testing in the laboratory, the First Appeal No.274 of 2022 17 body of the meter is required to be duly sealed by the officer concerned or the person authorized to do so. No doubt, the Distribution Licensee has a right to test any consumer meter and related equipment, either at the site or in the laboratory, in case there is a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the meter. In such situation, the consumer is also required to cooperate in conducting the test. During such exercise, the consumer has a right to be present during such testing and thereafter a copy of testing result undertaking the accuracy of the meter is required to be provided to the consumer. However, a consumer may also make request for testing of the meter in case there is a doubt about the accuracy. The Distribution Licensee either undertakes the test at the site or in the laboratory within the prescribed period, as provided. In case, the consumer is not satisfied with the site testing of the meter installed, the meter is to be removed and packed/sealed in the presence of the consumer or occupier of the premises for testing in the laboratory. In such a situation, another meter which is duly tested is required to be installed at the premises of such consumer. In the event of any such apprehension regarding tampering of meter or its seals, then the packing containing the meter is required to be jointly sealed by the Distribution Licensee and the consumer/occupier of the premises. The proposed date of testing is necessary to be intimated to the consumer. In case, the seal is to be removed, the same is to be done in the presence of the consumer or his or her First Appeal No.274 of 2022 18 authorized representative within the prescribed period from the date of removal of meter from the premises of the consumer.
24. In case of incorrect meters, if on testing it is found to be beyond the limit of accuracy as prescribed, the account of the consumer is to be overhauled and the electricity charges are required to be computed in accordance with the test results for the period not exceeding six months.
25. In view of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, it has not been proved on record by any document or evidence either before the District Commission or before this Commission in the appeal that any show-cause notice was issued to the respondent/complainant as per aforesaid provisions, whereas it was required to be issued before imposing any penalty upon the consumer. Even it has not been proved on record by way of cogent and convincing evidence that it was a case of dead meter. Even the signatures of the complainant were not obtained on the Job Order for Device Replacement (MCO) dated 05.03.2018 (at page-59 of the District Commission's record). Meaning thereby the old meter was removed in the absence of the complainant, which amounts to violation of the relevant Rules and Regulations of the PSPCL. Even no photograph or evidence has been produced on record to show that the removed meter was packed and sealed at the spot under the signatures of the complainant.
First Appeal No.274 of 2022 19
26. As per Job Order for Device Replacement (MCO) dated 05.03.2018, the old meter of the complainant was removed on 23.08.2018 and new meter was installed. The reading of the removed meter was mentioned in the said document as 31637. The stand of the opposite party is that the meter was dead on 09.11.2015 and the meter reading on 04.11.2015 was recorded as 19753. However, on perusal of consumption data at page-77 of the District Commission's record, the status of the meter since 04.11.2015 onwards was shown as 'O' (OK) till 01.01.2018 and thereafter the status w.e.f. 02.02.2018 to 22.08.2018 was shown as 'D' (dead). However, the important thing to be noticed is that during said period, the status meter was shown 'D' and the meter kept on recording the reading every month as per the consumption of electricity consumed by the complainant and the bills were raised accordingly, which were duly paid by the complainant and accepted by the opposite party without raising any objection at any point of time. It is not understandable as to how the meter continued to record the consumption reading used by the complainant if the status of the meter was shown as 'D' (dead) during said period. If the meter was dead during that period, then no meter reading should have been there on the screen of the meter but contrary to that, the meter kept on recording reading as per consumption of electricity and no explanation whatsoever is coming forward in this regard on the part of the opposite party.
First Appeal No.274 of 2022 20
27. Perusal of the chart as given at page-73 of the District Commission's record shows that the bills were raised on SAP/average basis. However, on perusal of bill dated 03.02.2016 at page-79, the previous reading was recorded as 20285 and current/new reading was recorded as 20512 and consumption of units recorded by the meter was
227. Similarly, in the bill dated 04.04.2016 at page-81, the previous reading was recorded as 20800 and current/new reading was recorded as 21072 and consumption of units recorded by the meter was 272. Likewise, in the bill dated 06.04.2017 at page-83, the previous reading was recorded as 25101 and current/new reading was recorded as 25376 and consumption of units was recorded as 275. In the consumption data at page-77, the meter reading is shown as 31344 as on 03.08.2018, whereas in the bill issued on 03.08.2018 (Ex.C-27), the old meter reading was shown as 30867 and there is no mention of new meter reading (31344) as shown in the consumption data. Therefore, the readings as mentioned in the aforesaid chart/consumption data do not correlate with the readings as mentioned in the electricity bills, which are generally issued by the department after all verifications.
28. The opposite party has alleged that the complainant had given consent letter dated 23.08.2018 Annexure A-1 (produced in appeal) to check the removed meter in his absence. However, neither any such plea was taken in the reply nor the alleged consent letter was produced before the District Commission. Said document has been First Appeal No.274 of 2022 21 produced along with the appeal only and that too without moving any such application for adducing additional evidence. In case such consent letter was obtained from the complainant, then why this fact was not pleaded and said consent letter was not produced before the District Commission. Even otherwise, the respondent/complainant has specifically disputed his signatures of the alleged consent letter (Annexure A-1). Even the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant has also stated that the complainant was ready for comparison of his signatures with the signatures put on the said consent letter. Moreover, with the naked eye, the signature of the consent letter appears to be different on comparison from the signature of the complainant put on the Power of Attorney filed with the appeal before this Commission. Therefore, the alleged consent letter (Annexure A-1) being doubtful cannot be relied upon. Since the consent letter produced by the complainant is not reliable/authentic, so it cannot be said that the findings recorded as per the ME Lab. report produced on record are correct or not. Consequently, it has not been proved by any cogent and convincing evidence that the meter of the complainant was actually dead or not.
29. A specific finding has been recorded by the District Commission in Para-8 of the impugned order, which has been supported by the judgment passed by this Commission in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Sham Sunder 2007 (2) CPJ First Appeal No.274 of 2022 22
348. Relevant observations made in the said judgment are reproduced as under:
"3. The primary ground on the basis of which the complaint was allowed by the District Forum was that neither the electric meter was packed and sealed in a cardboard box in the presence of the complainant or his representative nor the complainant or his representative was called to come present when the meter was to be checked in the M.E. Lab. There being a mandatory provision in the regulations of the PSEB that when the meter is to be checked, the consumer or his representative is to be asked in writing to come present on the day when the meter is to be checked in the M.E. Lab. and that having not been done, the notice of demand on the basis of M.E. Lab. report could not be sustained.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that since it was a case of theft of energy the meter need not have been sent to M.E. Lab. Since, when the meter was removed it was checked there and then by the standard heat load and stopwatch method, which indicated that the meter was recording 50% less energy, there was sufficient material with the PSEB to issue the impugned demand notice.
5. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellants. When the testing is done at the spot it is a prima facie conclusion that is drawn by the PSEB officials. The real confirmation of the initial observation is when the meter is tested in the M.E. Lab. It is apparent from the facts of this case when at the spot in the premises the meter was tested with standard heat load and stopwatch method the officials of the PSEB found that the meter was recording 50% less energy whereas when the meter was tested in the M.E. Lab. and it was found that the current coils were changed from the terminal block with the main load and he meter was found recording 63.44% less energy. The basis of the demand notice was the M.E. Lab. report. Since the meter was not packed and sealed in the premises in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained. The complainant was also not called to come present in the M.E. Lab. on the day of testing of the meter was to take place. We are of the view that no fault can be found with the order of the District Forum when it quashed the impugned demand notice on the ground that M.E. Lab. report, under these circumstances, could not be relied upon for issuing the impugned demand notice....First Appeal No.274 of 2022 23
30. As per provisions of Regulations 21.5.2. of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2014 (up to 7th Amendment), the account of the consumer is to be overhauled for the period the meter remanded defective or dead or stopped but subject to maximum period of only six months and that too when it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the meter was dead/defective etc., which is not so in the instant case. However, in the present case, the account of the complainant was overhauled for a period of three years i.e. from 2015 to 2018. This act of the appellant/opposite party not only amounts to 'unfair trade practice' but also the violative of the Rules and Regulations of the PSPCL itself.
31. In view of the facts and reasons as mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party. The findings recorded by the District Commission are based on proper appreciation of evidence and not required to be interfered. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
32. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and the impugned order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the District Commission is upheld.
33. Since the main case has been disposed of, so all the pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed of.First Appeal No.274 of 2022 24
34. The appellants had deposited a sum of ₹6,500/- at the time of filing of the appeal. Another amount of ₹6,500/- was also deposited, vide receipt dated 18.05.2022 in compliance of order dated 19.4.2022.
Said amounts, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the District Commission forthwith.
The respondent/complainant may approach the District Commission for the release of the same and the District Commission may pass appropriate order in this regard in accordance with law.
35. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases and pandemic of COVID-19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER September 30, 2022.
(Gurmeet S)