State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Suresh Kumar vs Punjab State Electricity Board, on 15 April, 2014
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.1674 of 2009
Date of institution : 25.11.2009
Date of Decision : 15.04.2014
Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Sant Prashad R/o H.No.411, Sector 71, Mohali,
District Mohali.
...Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, the Mall, Patiala through its
Chairman.
2. Xen (Senior Executive Engineer), P.S.E.B. Division Sirhind,
G.T.Road, Sirhind, G.T.Road, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer (SDO) Sub Division Badali Ala Singh,
District Fatehgarh Sahib.
...Respondents/OPs
First Appeal against the order
dated 13.10.2009 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Shri H.S.Guram, Member Present :-
For the appellant : None
For respondent : Ex-parte
VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant (hereinafter referred as 'complainant') under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'Act') against the order dated 13.10.2009 in consumer complaint no.489-A of 2008 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib First Appeal No.1674 of 2009 2 (hereinafter called as 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Suresh Kumar filed the complaint under the Act against the OPs/respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'OPs') on the averments that the electric connection account no.K 55SP 81028 W was installed in the premises of the complainant. The complainant was paying electricity consumption and other charges regularly. The complainant was running small poultry farm in the premises for self employment and for earning livelihood and there was no employment of labour on regular basis. It was alleged that the complainant OP/respondent issued the bill dated 15.11.2008 by adding Rs.1,32,637/- as sundry charges. But nothing was due towards the complainant, it is settled law that the consumer must know what he was paying for and why he was paying for. It was pleaded that the complainant filed an application on 08.12.2008 for correction of the bill but the office of the Sub Division, Badali Ala Singh issued notice bearing No.1600 dated 8.12.08 alleging that meter was checked at ME Lab, Mandi Gobindgarh and mentioned that the result of the meter was correct and payment of Rs.1,32,637/- was demanded by the PSEB was arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction as the OP never called the complainant at the time of checking the meter in ME, lab Mandi Gobindgarh. The complainant filed the complaint seeking directions to the OPs to quash the demand raised in bill dated 15.11.2008 and notice dated 8.12.2008 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and OP to restrained from disconnecting the electric connection in question.
3. Upon notice the OPs filed written reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable, that the complainant misused and abused the process of law; complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious; complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands; complicated questions of laws and facts were involved, as such the Forum First Appeal No.1674 of 2009 3 had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint and that the complainant was using the electric connection for commercial purpose. On merits, it was admitted that the bill dated 15.11.2008 was issued to the complainant for Rs.1,32,637/- as sundry charges. It was denied that the complainant was running small poultry farm in the premises for self employment and earning livelihood. It was admitted that the complainant had challenged the meter and the meter was checked in the ME lab, Mandi Gobindgarh. Before challenging the meter complainant submitted and undertaking that the result of ME lab will not binding on him as he will not contest the result of the authority and meter can be checked in the absence of the complainant. Accordingly, the meter was checked and found OK as per the ledger and bill was paid upto 13552 units and difference of the units between 49332 and ledger reported 13552 units have been charged from the complainant which is an amount of Rs.1,32,637/- due to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Parties were allowed by the District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations complainant filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 photocopy of bill, Ex.C-3 notice, Ex.C-4 copy of objections. On the other hand, OP filed affidavit of Er. Santokh Singh Ex.R-1 and documents Ex.R-2 receipt, Ex.R-3 MCO, Ex.R-4 letter, Ex.R-5 affidavit, Ex.R-6 letter, Ex.R-7 Challan, Ex.R-8 Calculation sheet, Ex.R-9 checking report.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant/complainant has come up in the appeal on the ground that the respondent has stated in reply that the meter of the complainant was checked and found OK as per First Appeal No.1674 of 2009 4 result of the ME, Lab then there was no occasion for the respondent to demand an amount of Rs.1,32,637/- because the appellant/complainant had made regular payment as per the monthly bill issued by the respondent. The District forum has committed grave error in not believing the evidence on record and also mis-construed the facts and circumstances of the case. The District Forum has not appreciated the fact that the respondent/OP has failed to justified the illegal demand of Rs.1,32,637/- as sundry charges. The District Forum has erred in not appreciating that the averments of the respondent/OP is that as per their ledger they have demanded the amount of Rs.1,32,637/- from the appellant/complainant. However, no document or any ledger produced before the District Forum by the respondent. The OP has failed to prove the demand. Moreover, it was not disclosed about the period for which this illegal demand was made but the District Forum has failed to consider this fact. The District Forum has also not denied the fact that the evidence produced by the respondent/OP in the shape of affidavit given by the Engr. Santokh Singh is defective and as per law it cannot be read in evidence against the complainant. The District Forum has committed grave error in dismissing the complaint of the complainant and wrongly directed to deposit Rs.1,32,637/- with the OP. It was prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and order passed by the District Forum may be set- aside.
8. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and perused the record of the learned District Forum. None for the appellant present at the time of arguments. Respondent was proceeded against ex- parte vide order dated 22.02.2010.
9. The electric connection bearing no.K 55SP 81028 was installed by the OP in the premises of the complainant having connected load of 14.93kw.It is admitted fact that the OP issued the bill dated First Appeal No.1674 of 2009 5 15.11.2008 vide which Rs.1,32,637/- was shown as sundry charges Ex.C-
2. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has deposited Rs.450/- as challan fees vide receipt no.141 dated 27.06.2007 Ex.R-2. MCO no.49 dated 27.06.2007 was prepared which shows R=KWH=049332.57 Ex.R-3 and the complainant had signed on it. The complainant has given the undertaking that the result of the ME, lab shall be binding upon or and shall never contest the result of the reporting authority and also authorized to check the meter in question in his absence as per Ex.R-5. The complainant had moved an application to the AAE, PSEB, Badali that the meter was running fast Ex.R-6. As per the Ex.C-2 which shows that the old reading of the meter in question is 49290 and the new reading 54520 and the consumption is 5230 for the period 30.09.2008 to 30.10.2008. The meter was sent to the ME lab vide challan no.3 dt. 5.9.2008 Ex.R-7. We have perused Ex.R-8 in which it was shown that the meter was checked on 5.9.2008 and as per the report of the ME lab the reading of the meter is 49332 unit, when it was removed from the premises of the complainant in the presence of the complainant. As per ledger the complainant had deposited the amount of the units consumed by him i.e. 13552 units and the difference between the units consumed and the units shown in the meter is 35280 and the complainant is liable to pay an amount of 35,780 units which is amounting to Rs.1,32,637/-. The OP has placed on record Ex. R-9 report of ME, lab which shows the result of the meter of the complainant is within limit. But in this case the OP has demanded the amount of Rs.1,32,637/- more on the basis of their ledger account but the OP has failed to disclosed about the period for which this demand was raised. So the demand raised by the OP is not justified and the District Forum has not considered this fact and wrongly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. So the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
First Appeal No.1674 of 2009 6
10. Sequel to the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the appeal is partly accepted and the order passed by the learned District Forum is set-aside. OP is directed to issue the fresh notice after verifying the amount already paid by the complainant and after adjusting the said amount to the bill for the differences of the reading be prepared and issued to the complainant for payment. The order be complied within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. Consequently the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed as per the terms referred above.
11. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 07.04.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member (H.S.Guram) Member April 15,2014 Rs