State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R.S.Bhullar vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 26 February, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1325 OF 2009
Date of Institution: 17.09.2009
Date of Decision: 26.02.2014
R.S.Bhullar S/o Partap Singh aged about 62 years resident of 40-
Sector IV Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar Tehsil and District Amritsar.
.....Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
Punjab State Electricity Board Sub Division Ajnala Road, Amritsar.
.....Respondent/Opposite Party
First Appeal against the order
dated 4.8.2009 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellant : Sh.Birdavinder Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.J.S.Sidhu, Advocate BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for modification of the order dated 4.8.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum"), vide which his complaint was partly allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses for causing unnecessary harassment and inconvenience to him and prayed for issuance of the direction as detailed in the appeal. First Appeal No. 1325 of 2009 Page 2 of 6
2. The facts, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant was having an electric connection bearing account No.A24GS23/0950L for his residence. In June, 2007, his meter stopped passing out one phase but regular readings were reflected in the bills issued by the PSEB. The Meter Reader put it under 'D' category and assured that it would be changed shortly. Instead of verifying or checking the meter, the opposite party issued inflated bills arbitrarily on average consumption basis with effect from July/August, 2007 till March, 2009; which were duly paid by him. Ultimately, the meter was changed on 8.1.2009 after a lot of verbal and written requests. The connected/sanctioned load was 9.0 KWs whereas, in the bills issued from January, 1999 onwards, the same was being shown as 0.9 KW till August, 2003 and the position was regularized only after a lot of verbal as well as written requests. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, the complainant sought refund of the amount of excess bills already paid by him besides compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for causing unnecessary harassment to him.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party filed written reply pleading therein that the amount had been charged in the bills on average basis as per the Electricity Supply Regulation No.73.1.2 for the period from September, 2007 to January, 2009 on account of non-availability of the correct consumption for these months. Since the average seemed to be on higher side, therefore, the bills were amended on the request of the complainant by charging the bills at 780 units/bimonthly. It First Appeal No. 1325 of 2009 Page 3 of 6 was admitted that the sanctioned load of 0.9 KW of the complainant was inadvertently mentioned in the bills due to clerical mistake, which was duly rectified. However, the correspondence referred to by him was stated to be fabricated. The dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. Both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. The District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, partly allowed the complaint in the aforesaid terms.
6. Not fully satisfied by this order, the complainant has come up in appeal on the ground that the District Forum has ignored the report of the JE in which it was clearly stated that one phase of the three phase meter was not giving supply and the consumer had put his load on other two phases. It clearly shows that the meter was recording the actual consumption. If one phase of the meter was not giving supply and the load of the consumer was being used from the remaining two phases which were giving electric supply, the meter cannot be considered to be defective since the entire consumption was being recorded by it through two phases. The energy bills of the complainant should have been ordered to be prepared on the basis of the actual consumption for the period July, 2007 to January, 2009. The District Forum has rightly awarded compensation and litigation expenses to him for unnecessary harassment and inconvenience on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party but it First Appeal No. 1325 of 2009 Page 4 of 6 has erred in omitting to grant the main relief for adjustment of excess bills for the period from July, 2007 to January, 2009 prepared on the basis of average consumption. The acceptance of the appeal and modification of the impugned order was prayed.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that there was no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed.
8. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record.
9. The only question that remains to be settled is whether the meter of the complainant was defective and if so whether the opposite party was entitled to overhaul the account of the complainant from July/August, 2007 to March, 2009 on average basis. The opposite party has placed on record the details of the amount charged from the complainant for the period from July, 2007 to January, 2009 as Ex.R-
2. Ex.R-5 is a table showing the actual recorded bimonthly consumption vis-à-vis the consumption on the basis of which the bills were charged. A perusal of this document shows that the meter has been recording readings regularly from May, 2007 to March, 2009 indicating that the meter itself was not defective. It has not been stated by the opposite party on the basis of which report the meter was declared defective and the bills were charged on average basis as per Regulation 73.1.2. The complainant has categorically contended that his meter stopped giving supply on one phase and this fact was verified by the concerned JE in his report on 4.10.2008. The opposite First Appeal No. 1325 of 2009 Page 5 of 6 party has merely stated in its written reply that billing was done on average basis for the month of September, 2007 to January, 2009 due to non-availability of the correct consumption for the said months. However, no reason for non-availability of the correct consumption has been stated. It has not even contested the claim of the complainant that his meter was checked by the JE wherein it was found that the meter was not giving supply on one phase and the consumer was using his full load on the remaining two phases. In the absence of any specific report to the effect that the meter was not recording full consumption of complainant, the opposite party was not entitled to overhaul his account and charge the bill on average basis as per Regulation 73.1.2.
10. In view of the above discussion and findings, the revision of the account of the complainant from July, 2007 to January, 2009 on average basis is held illegal and the demand raised on this account is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant/complainant is allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum is modified. The opposite party is directed to withdraw the revision of bill for the period from July, 2007 to January, 2009 made on average basis consumption and charge only the amount as per actual consumption recorded by the meter and to adjust the excess amount paid by the complainant in his future electricity bills. No order as to costs.
11. The arguments in the case were heard on 13.2.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No. 1325 of 2009 Page 6 of 6
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER February 26, 2014 VINAY