State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurdev Kaur vs Pseb on 20 February, 2014
2nd Addl. Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.223 of 2008
Date of institution : 11.03.2008
Date of Decision : 20.02.2014
Gurdev Kaur wife of Sh. Shamsher Singh, resident of House No.331, Old
Pind Mohali, Distt. Mohali.
...Appellant/complainant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Assistant Executive Engineer
(Commercial) Unit No.1, Sub Division, Mohali, Distt. Mohali.
...Respondent/OP
First Appeal against the order
dated 09.01.2008 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Ropar.
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Shri H.S.Guram, Member
Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh.J.S.Gill, Advocate
For respondent : None
ORDER
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 09.01.2008 in consumer complaint no.242 of 2007 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter called as 'District Forum') vide which the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.First Appeal No.223 of 2008 2
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-Gurdev Kaur filed the complaint under the Act against the OP/respondent (hereinafter referred as 'OP') on the averments that electric connection bearing meter no.DF 63/1154 was installed in his house. The OP issued demand notice for Rs.3,65,080/- vide memo no.4145 dated 22.08.2007 to the complainant. It was stated in the notice that due to the negligence of the meter Reader wrong readings of the consumption were taken and bill for 451 units were charged but as per the meter Inspector it should have been of 9399 units. It was alleged that the demand of the payment was made for the alleged consumption from April, 2004 to June, 2007, which is illegal, null and void and the OP threatened the complainant that the electric connection would be dis-connected in case the amount was not deposited within ten days from the receipt of this notice. It was further pleaded that as per the Provisions of Section 26 of the Electricity Act maximum period for paying a bill can be raised in respect of the defective meter is within six months and not more. The OP, therefore, cannot raise the bill for a period of more than six months. It was alleged that the meter was not tested from the electrical Inspector as per rules. The meter was inspected at the back of the complainant. It was pleaded that the meter Reader checked the meter after every two months and different meter Readers have checked the meter. It was surprising that none of the Reader could find the fault within a period of more than three years. The notice has been issued without making any enquiry. The complainant filed the complaint seeking direction to the OP to withdraw the illegal demand vide bill dated 22.08.2007 and to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs.
3. Upon notice the OP filed written reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and is liable to be dismissed. On merits it was admitted that the complainant moved an application on 10.02.2004 for the change of the meter. In view of First Appeal No.223 of 2008 3 the request of the complainant a MCO was issued on 13.02.2004 and was affected on 17.02.2004. A new meter bearing no.880990 was installed at 00003 reading. The meter was Electro Magnetic of five digits. The meter Reader while checking the reading noted the reading in four digits and failed to note the one figure i.e. last figure. It was pleaded that suspicion has arisen in the working of the meter and a meter Inspector namely Gurnam Singh was deputed to check the electric connection of DF 63/1154 of the complainant. The meter Inspector Gurnam Singh had checked the reading after 1.8.2007 and daily reading was noted regarding the disputed account i.e. DF 63/1154. It was observed that average consumption of the complainant was about 39 units per day and then it was further found that the complainant had a big complex where many rooms were constructed and supply was being provided to various tenants through sub meters. That average consumption of the complainant prior to 2004 i.e. prior to installation of the meter in question was also found in between 1500 units and 2400 units. It was further submitted that the consumption was wrongly noticed by oversight by Dalvir Singh Line Man who is working as meter Reader during the said period. It was further submitted that in view of the report of the Meter Inspector the account of the complainant was overhauled w.e.f. 17.02.2004 to 6.8.2007 i.e. for 21 bi-monthly that total consumption recorded was 94,736 units and average consumption bi- monthly came to 4511 units and accordingly, the calculation was made and after adjusting the amount paid by the complainant net amount due against the complainant was Rs.3,65,080/- and notice dated 22.08.2007 was served upon the complainant to make the payment of the disputed amount. That the complainant had failed to make the payment of said amount and moved an application before the competent authority to put up his case before the Dispute Settlement Committee but she had not deposited 1/3 of the disputed amount and also failed to turn up to pursue the matter and First Appeal No.223 of 2008 4 subsequently, notice dated 22.08.2007, 26.09.2007 and 15.10.2007 were served upon the complainant. It was further submitted that the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Electricity Act were not applicable in the present case because the meter was not defective. That the same meter was still existing at the premises of the complainant and the complainant had never challenged the accuracy of the working of the meter. There was no deficiency on the part of the OP 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 her affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex.C-2 demand notice, Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-19 are the bills, Ex.C-20 letter. On the other hand, OP filed affidavit of Sh.H.S.Bhoparai, Sr. Executive Engineer Ex.R-1, and documents Ex.R-2 MCO, Ex.R-3 to Ex.R-7 Meter Blank, Ex.R-8 & Ex. R-9, Ex.R-10 & Ex.R-11 consumption Data, Ex.R-12 billing data, Ex.R-13 calculation sheet, Ex.R- 14 notice, Ex.R-15 to Ex.R-18 are the letters.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 09.01.2008 that while making the recovery from the complainant, the Board will take into consideration the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 or any other similar provisions regarding the time limit for which the recovery for the past consumption can be lawfully made from a consumer. If it is found that for any such period the amount cannot be recovered from the complainant attempts be made to recover that amount from the official whosoever is found on enquiries to be at fault in taking the reading not once but continuously on the basis of four digits, when the meter installed admittedly was of five digits.
First Appeal No.223 of 2008 5
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the 09.01.2008 complainant has come up in the appeal on the ground that the order of the learned District Forum is against the facts and laws and based on conjectures and surmises. The appellant had been receiving bills regularly and making payment regularly and neither the meter Reader nor meter Inspector or line-man of the area ever found any fault either with the payment or with the meter and the learned District Forum has wrongly held that sum of Rs.3,59,666/- is due. Section 26 of the Electricity Act is directly applicable to the present case but this fact has been ignored by the District Forum. District Forum has dismissed the complaint of the appellant without any cogent reason and without interpreting with respect of the electricity Act applicable at present and ignoring all the points raised by the appellant before them and prayed that the appeal may be accepted and order passed by the District Forum be set-aside.
8. Neither the counsel for the respondent nor anyone on behalf of the respondent appeared at the time of arguments.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
10. It is admitted fact that the appellant has moved an application on 10.02.2004 for checking of the meter Ex.C-20. MCO no.111/60946 was issued on 13.02.2004 and was affected on 17.02.2004 and new meter bearing no.880990 was installed at 00003 reading under DS category. The electricity bill Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-19 which shows that the reading in terms of units of the last consumption and new consumption was shown in four digits and it was never shown in five digits. The contention of the respondent/OP is that while checking the reading of the meter the meter reader took the reading considering the meter as four figures due to this error meter reader had not recorded the correct reading. The meter reader First Appeal No.223 of 2008 6 recording the reading on 5.6.2007 for 9228 units and on 7.8.2007 was 94620 units Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-7. The OP deputed Sh. Gurnam Singh Meter Inspector to check the connection of the appellant. The connection was checked on 2.8.2007 the reading of the appellant is 94551 units Ex.R-8 and after that daily reading was noted regarding the disputed account No.DF-63/1154. It was observed that the average consumption of the appellant was about 39 units per day as Ex.R-9. The respondent has placed on record Ex.R-3 to Ex.R-7 reading chart of the complainant. Yearwise, consumption chart of the complainant was also placed on record which is Ex.R-10 and Ex.R-11. The appellant has never challenged that the meter is defective. The status of the meter is OK. The Meter Inspector has recorded the reading of the appellant as 94551 units in Ex.R-8. As per reading in Ex.R-8 on 1.8.2007 clearly shows that the Meter Reader earlier had not recorded the correct reading. As per Ex.R-13 the respondent has overhauled the account of the complainant for the period from 4.2.2004 to 8.2.2007 on the basis of the consumption on 3911 units bi-monthly i.e. for 21 bi-monthly for Rs.3,59,688/- which is not justified as per the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
11. As per the Electricity Act, 2003 Section 56(2) the respondent can recover the outstanding amount from the complainant for the previous two years not beyond that but in this case the respondent has overhauled the account of the complainant for the period of 42 months and on the basis of that demand has been raised from the appellant which is not justified. So the respondent is directed to overhaul the account of the complainant for the previous two years and then issued the fresh demand notice after deducting the amount, if any, which has already been paid of the said period by the appellant. Ex.R-18 is the letter dated 14.08.2007 of Senior Executive Engineer of the Board addressed to Engineer N.S.Rangi, Asstt. Executive Engineer regarding the enquiry entrusted to him qua the First Appeal No.223 of 2008 7 activities of the Meter Reader Dalbir Singh therefore, the respondent will be at liberty to recover the remaining amount from the officials who so ever on enquiry found to be at fault in taking wrong reading.
12. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the complainant/appellant is partly allowed and the order of the learned District Forum is modified to the extent that respondents/OPs are entitled to recover the amount for the previous two years and directed the OP to issue the fresh demand notice after deducting the amount, if any, paid by the complainant to the OP with no order as to costs of appeal.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 13.02.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
14. 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 February 20, 2014 Rs