State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sde, Sewerage, Sunam vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on 5 January, 2016
F.A. No. 463 of 2014 1
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.463 of 2014
Date of institution : 21.04.2014
Date of decision : 05.01.2016
SDE, Sewerage, Sunam through its Executive Officer, Nagar
Council Sunam
.......Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala
through its Secretary, through its Superintendent Engineer
(SE) PSPCL, Sangrur
2. Assistant Engineer City Sub Division, Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, Sunam District Sangrur.
3. XEN PSPCL Sunam.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 06.03.2014 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Mrs. Kavita Arora, Advocate
For the respondents : Mrs. J.K. Gurna, Advocate
MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR, MEMBER
ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as the ('Complainant') has filed the present appeal against the order dated 06.03.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, F.A. No. 463 of 2014 2 Sangrur (hereinafter referred as "District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No.725 dated 05.09.2011 vide which complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed on the ground that connection was having CT meter 200/5 instead of 100/5 due that 50% consumption was less recorded. Therefore, Ops were entitled to recover the dues on the actual consumption of energy and Ops had rightly issued the demand notice on basis of consumption of electricity which was recorded less due to wrong connection.
2. A complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986(in short `the Act') against Respondents/Opposite parties(hereinafter referred as "OPs") on the averments that connection No.MS-52/125, was running under name of S.D.E., Nagar Council Sunam. Complainant being the head of the department was regularly paying electricity bills issued by OPs and nothing was due against them. Vide letter no.1892 dated 24.08.2011 OPs demanded a sum of Rs.14,17,832/-on the plea that 18.8.2011 electric connection was checked by their flying Squad and found that electric connection was having CT meter 200/5 instead of 100/5 and one phase was wrongly connected due to that correct consumption was not recorded. It was the duty of OPs to connect the phases as per requirement and there was no fault of complainant, if one phase was wrongly connected by OPs. Meter was neither checked in the presence of complainant nor his signatures were taken by OPs on checking report. Complainant had never authorized any person to sign the checking report on his behalf. OPs had wrongly alleged that one phase was wrongly connected due to that actual consummation was not being recorded. Complainant made a request to OPs to withdraw demand notice but OPs threatened them to disconnect the electric F.A. No. 463 of 2014 3 connection. The above said act of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service. He filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking following directions against OPs:-
(i) to withdraw letter/ Memo no.1892 dated 24.08.2011,
(ii) to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment;
(iii) to pay Rs.50,000/- for litigation costs.
3. Complaint was contested by OPs. OP No.1 to 3 pleaded that connection no. MS-52/125 was issued in the name of the complainant. Connection in dispute was checked on 18.08.2011 by PK Garg Sr.XEN Enforcement Sangrur, Sh. Harvinder Sharma JE, Sh.
Ashok Kumar AAE, and Sh. Ishwar Singh JE. At the time of checking it was found that CT connection was wrongly connected, due to that proper consumption was not recorded. After checking meter was handed over to Baljit Singh SDO City Sunam, who sealed the disputed meter against seal No.250363 dated 12.10.2011. After that new meter was installed vide MCO No.035/10156 dated 19.08.2011. However, initial reading at the time of installing meter was KWH 116-0, whereas, on 12.10.2011new meter reading was KWH-190.7. Further, on 18.11.2011 reading was KWHVAH 10358 as reported by Sh. Surjit Singh SDO. After calculation 223 units were recorded from 12.10.2011 to 18.11.2011, by new meter and demand notice No.1892 dated 24.08.2011 was issued regarding difference of units . Complainant was bound to pay the amount i.e.Rs14,17,832 to OPs. It was further submitted that OPs checked the connection in dispute on 18.08.2011 in the presence of Devinder Singh representative of complainant (motor operator), who signed the checking report after admitting the same to be correct. OPs never alleged in notice that complainant was F.A. No. 463 of 2014 4 committing theft of electricity but as per checking report dated 18.08.2011, connection was wrongly connected and due to that reading was recorded less than actual consumption. There was no deficiency in their service and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. The parties were allowed by learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of the averments, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex C-1 along with other documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 and closed their evidence. On other hand OPs had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Surjit Singh, PSPCL Ex.R-1 and affidavit of Baljit Singh, SDO City Sunam Ex.R-2 and Sh. P.K. Garg, Sr. XEN PSPCL Sangrur Ex.R-3 and Sh. Harwinder Sharma, J.E.P PSPCL as Ex.R-4 along with documents Ex.R-5 to R-14 and closed their evidence.
6. Vide order dated 17.7.2013 District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant after relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (C) No.35906 of 2011) titled as "U.P. Power Corporation Limited & Ors. Vs Anis Ahmad", decided on 1st July, 2013, that it was a case of theft therefore, complaint of the complainant was not maintainable. It was dismissed with liberty to complainant to approach the appropriate authority under the Act.
7. Aggrieved against the order passed by the District Forum Appellant/Complainant had filed the appeal no.1192 of 2013 before this commission. Vide order dated 21.11.2013 this commission set aside the order of the District forum and remanded back the case to the District Forum with the observation that it was not a case of theft and direction was given to decide the matter on merits. F.A. No. 463 of 2014 5
8. After going through allegations alleged in complaint, written reply filed by OPs evidence and documents brought on record, learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as referred above.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and carefully gone through the record of the District Forum.
10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that demand notice no 1892 dated 24.8.2011 was received from Assistant Engineer, Urban Sub Division, PSPCL City Sunam wherein demand of Rs. 14,17,832/- was raised on the allegations that during checking of the electric connection in question by the Flying Squad of OPs, they found all the things to be correct except that the connection was having CT meter 200/5 instead of 100/5 and the phase was wrongly connected, which was connected by OPs and there was no fault on the part of the complainant. Complainant placed reliance on the judgment "Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur versus Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors". 2011 (1) CPC 7 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Consumer cannot be held guilty unless a check meter was installed in the premises in order to ascertain the correctness of the reading. However, the ratio of the judgment "Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur versus Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors". 2011 (1) CPC 7" is not applicable in the present case. In this case complainant meter was 200/5 CT and one phase was wrongly connected. After checking, meter was removed and handed over to Baljit Singh SDO City Sunam, who sealed the disputed meter against seal No.250363 dated 12.10.2011. After that new meter was installed vide MCO No.035/10156 dated 19.08.2011. Meter was not challenged by the complainant regarding its correctness. On 18.11.2011 reading of new meter was KWHVAH F.A. No. 463 of 2014 6 10358 as reported by Sh. Surjit Singh SDO. On calculating reading from 12.10.2011 to 18.11.2011(ExR14) 223 units were recorded by new installed meter. Account of the complainant was overhauled as per regulations of OPs and demand notice No.1892 dated 24.08.2011 to the tune of Rs14,17,832/- was issued to complainant.
11. For CT Meter a reference can be made to "Electricity Supply Instruction Manual" in which it was specifically mentioned under clause 59.4 which is reproduced as under:-
"If CTs connections are found wrong or CTs are found out of circuit and thus not contributing, the recorded consumption shall be enhanced proportionately, keeping in view non-contribution of CTs as applicable. This consumption shall be further subject to revision as per test results of the meter."
Instead of 200/5 CT it was taken as 100/5 CT and bill was prepared accordingly. Further, one phase was wrongly connected. Accordingly, the A/c of complainant was overhauled and impugned bill was issued. This fact is supported by the affidavit of P.K.Garg Sr XEN PSPCL Ex R3. Otherwise, consumption was not challenged by the complainant. He simply stated that it was the duty of OPs to connect the phases as per requirement and there was no fault of complainant, if one phase was wrongly connected by OPs. It is just wrong connection of the meter and wrong reading of CT of the Meter. If there is any inadvertent mistake, OPs reserve their right to correct the same according to the regulations.
12. However, the perusal of bill shows that it is for the period 11.11.2008 to 18.08.2011. It is to be determined whether OPs have rightly overhauled the bill for the said period. A reference can be made to Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 which reads as under:- F.A. No. 463 of 2014 7
56(2) "Notwithstanding any thing contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall not be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity".
In view of above said section of the Act OPs cannot overhaul the bill beyond two years. While dismissing the complaint District Forum observed that Ops have right to recover the arrears as per demand notice but under section 56 (2) of Electricity Act, OPs cannot demand the arrears for a period of more than two years. Therefore, the order of the District Forum required modification and complainant is liable to pay the arrears for the last two years from the date of issuing the demand notice by OP i.e. 24.8.2011.
13. In view of the above discussion, appeal of the complainant is partly allowed. OP is directed to issue a fresh demand notice after calculating the arrears for the last two years from the date of demand notice i.e. 24.8.2011. The complainant will be required to pay that bill as per the new demand notice issued by OPs, failing which OPs will reserve their right to recover as per provisions under the Act & Regulations.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 04.11.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.F.A. No. 463 of 2014 8
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) Presiding Judicial Member (SURINDER PAL KAUR) th January 5 , 2016 MEMBER SK