State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nagar Council Banur, District Patiala vs Punjab State Electricity Board, ... on 21 July, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 425 of 2006
Date of institution : 20.3.2006
Date of Decision : 21.7.2011
Nagar Council Banur, District Patiala (Punjab) through its Executive Officer.
....Appellant.
Versus
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala through its Secretary.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Banur,
District Patiala (Punjab).
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated 1.2.2006 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Patiala.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Vinish Singla, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh. G.S. Lalli, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by appellant/complainant-Nagar Council Banur, District Patiala(hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 1.2.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the appellant was dismissed by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-Nagar council used tubewell electricity connection No. MS-71/0025 for supplying water to the general public. Respondents issued bill dated 6.4.2005 for an amount of Rs. 1,48,494/- against the said connection. On enquiry, respondent informed that Sr. Executive Engineer of Enforcement Staff checked the electric connection in dispute on 4.3.2005 and found that Red Phase First Appeal No. 425 of 2006 2 Terminal and Red Phase Potential were connected with each other and Red Phase's C.T. was also found in reverse condition. Appellant pleaded that flying squad had not checked the electric connection in the presence of any of his official. It was pleaded that the meter was installed by the respondent after its checking from the M.E. Lab and if any fault occurred, the same was on the part of the respondents and the appellant was not liable for the same. Appellant pleaded that as per Regulation No. 70.6.3 respondents can overhaul the account in case there was any error in the meter. The complaint was filed with the prayer that the bill dated 6.4.2005 of Rs. 1,48,494/- be withdrawn by the respondents and compensation of Rs. 40,000/- may be awarded against the respondents.
3. Upon notice, respondents replied by taking preliminary objections that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, appellant has concealed the material facts. On merits, it was pleaded that checking was made on 4.3.2005 in the presence of official Sukhdev Singh and CTPT were found defective. If the appellant did not agree with the checking, he had a remedy to approach Chief Electrical Inspector but the appellant failed to avail the same. Respondents gave clarification to the appellant and at one stage the appellant agreed to deposit the amount by referring the dispute to the Disputes Settlement Committee but thereafter he had filed the consumer complaint. All other allegations were denied and prayed that complaint may be dismissed.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, dismissed the complaint by giving liberty to the appellant to approach the respondents for making payment in installments, if so desired.
5. Hence, the appeal.
First Appeal No. 425 of 2006 3
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 is filed by the appellant on the grounds that the District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the appellant without appreciating the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The District Forum has overlooked the facts, evidence and the conditions of supply produced by the appellant for the determination of the demand in dispute raised by the respondents from the appellant.
8. The dispute between the parties is regarding the demand of Rs. 1,48,494/- which was raised by the respondents from the appellant vide memo no. 1146 (Ex. C-4) dated 11.5.2005. The demand was raised by the respondents on the basis of checking dated 4.3.2005 conducted by Addl. S.E., Enforcement.
9. We have perused the checking report Ex. R-2. The electric connection of the appellant was checked by the Addl. S.E. Enforcement in the presence of Sukhdev Singh, the representative of the appellant. It is also admitted case of the appellant in the grounds of appeal that Sukhdev Singh was working as Plumber on contract basis with the appellant.
10. The directions of the Red Phase CT was changed and potential cable of red and blue phases were connected at the right terminals by the staff of the checking party after that the working of the meter was checked with the ERS instrument and it was found that accuracy of the meter was within the permissible limits. It was the observation of the checking official that due to reverse polarity and wrong connection of red and blue phase, potential cable was not recording the energy consumption correctly. The checking report was prepared at the First Appeal No. 425 of 2006 4 spot and the same was signed by Sh. Sukhdev Singh after admitting the same to be correct.
11. As per Condition No. 23 of the Conditions of Supply for sale of electric energy, the respondents were entitled for the additional amount for the period of the mistake/defect continued as per the genuine calculations from the consumer in case of incorrect connection of CTPT's.
12. So as per condition No. 23 of the conditions of supply, the respondents were entitled to recover the additional charges from the consumer only for the period of incorrect connection of the CTPT's.
13. The respondents have raised the demand of Rs.1,48,494/- from the appellant for the period of 10/03 to 2/05 but the respondents have not given any reason on what basis the account of the appellant was overhauled for the period of 10/03 to 2/05. The Condition No. 22.6 relates to the charges to be recovered from the consumer if the meter of the consumer's premises is found defective. Condition No. 22.6 is reproduced as under:-
"22.6 Should the Board, at any time, detect the meter at a consumer's premises to be out of order/incorrect, the Board shall cause a test of the said meter carried out and should the meter prove to be not correct, the consumer's account will be adjusted for a period of six months. If, however, the meter happens to be consumer's own property, the consumer will pay to the Board the expenses of the test."
14. So in view of the above condition, the respondents were entitled to raise additional demand from the appellant only for the six months but the respondents overhauled the account of the appellant for a period of 10/03 to 2/05 wrongly, as such, the demand of Rs. 1,48,494/- is quashed. The respondents are directed to overhaul the account of the appellant for a period of six months prior to the date of checking i.e. First Appeal No. 425 of 2006 5 4.3.2005 and the appellant will be liable to pay the same within one month after the receipt of the memo of fresh demand from the respondents.
15. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly accepted and the order under appeal is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted. No order as to costs.
16. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 14.7.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
17. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
July 21, 2011. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member