State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Virsa Singh on 28 November, 2013
1
First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009
1st Additional Bench
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009
Date of institution : 11.11.2009
Date of decision : 28.11.2013
1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman.
2. Superintending Engineer , Punjab State Electricity Board, Garhshankar
Road, Nawanshahr.
3. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Garhshankar Road,
Nawanshahr.
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Banga, Tehsil &
District Nawanshahr.
.......Appellants
Versus
Virsa Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of village Ladian, Post Office
Jandiala, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr.
......Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
29.09.2009 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat
Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr).
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member ...................................
Present:-
Sh. H.S.Thiara, Advocate, counsel for the appellant Respondent - Ex parte
------------------------------------ ----------- 2 First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009 VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER:-
This appeal was filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties (hereinafter called appellants) under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 29.09.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr) (in short the District Forum) vide which the complaint was accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent got installed the Motor tube well connection in his name bearing account No. LD-122 having connected load of 5 BHP for running his tubewell for irrigation purposes from the appellants and the respondent is the consumer of the appellant. The respondent has applied for the incense of the connected load from 5BHP to 7.5 BHP and deposited Rs. 3000/- under VDS scheme vide receipt No. 552/80560 dated 26.6.2006. It was pleaded that even after depositing the amount of Rs. 3000/- the appellant has not increased the voltage of Motor tube well of the respondent. The respondent and his associates made various representations before the PSEB vide applications dated 7.8.2006 to SDO Rural Banga, on 6.2.2008 SDO Banga and on 19.5.2007 before XEN (Division Banga). But the official of the appellants avoided under one pretext or the other and have not taken any action. It was pleaded that the paddy season is coming and the respondent has to sow the paddy crop for which the increasement of load/voltage was very essential. The respondent filed the complaint seeking direction to the appellants to increase the voltage of load of Motor tube well from 5 BHP to 7.5 BHP and to pay Rs. One lac as compensation for the loss of crops with interest @ 18%.
3. Upon notice, the appellants replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the respondent is not legally maintainable. The 3 First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009 respondent had not approached the District Forum with clean hands. The complaint is false and material facts have been suppressed by the respondent. It was admitted that the Motor tube well connection was installed in the name of the respondent having load of 5 BHP and the respondent applied for the increase of the load from 5 BHP to 7.5 BHP. It was also admitted that the respondent vide receipt No. 258/73976 deposited Rs. 2400/- on 29.12.2004 for the increase of the load from 3 BHP to 5 BHP and subsequent to it on 26.6.2006 vide receipt No. 552/80560 the respondent again deposited Rs. 3000/- for increase of load from 5 BHP to 7.5 BHP under VDS scheme. Under this VDS scheme any consumer could increase the load as per the concessional rate at that time. It was admitted that on dated 19.5.2005 vide diary No. 1134 the villagers submitted the applications that due to the length of LT line which was longer, the fuze of transformer became inoperative and goes off, this happens due to the excessive load on L.T. and H.T. lines. Due to the above said circumstances the load of the transformer was distributed and in addition to it a 63 KV transformer was installed and this fact has been disclosed to the consumers. It was submitted that the other schemes are ready of R.E.C. and A.P.D.R.P for giving separate connections by fixing the separate transformer under H.V.D.S. scheme and the consumers were enjoying the voltage of 359 in place of 415 voltage. The other allegations were denied. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and prayed for that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their contentions.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 29.09.2009 allowed the complaint and the direction was given to the appellants to remove the deficiency in service towards the respondent about 4 First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009 increasing the voltage of the tubewell connection and for its smooth functioning within two months from the receipt of the order failing which appellants shall be liable to pay compensation @ 250/- for each day of default as per clause 2.1(b) of the Notification dated 27.7.2007.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.9.2009, the appellants have come up in the appeal. The appeal was filed by the appellants on the following grounds :
" That on 19.05.2007 certain villagers alleged to have submitted application that due to the length of L.T. line which is longer, the fuse of the transformer became inoperative and goes off on account of excessive load on the L.T. and H.T. lines. Accordingly the load of the transformer was distributed and in addition a 63 KV transformer was installed. The other schemes were stated to be ready of R.E. and APDRP for giving separate connections by fixing separate transformers under HVDS scheme and the consumers were enjoying the voltage of 359 in place of 415 volt. Keeping in view the problem of villagers, PSEB Sub Division Suburban, Banga prepared a master plan of Jandiala feeder from where the said consumer was being given electricity supply. The plan was got sanctioned from Chief Engineer/North, Jalandhar vide Est. No. 91025/09-10 for improving voltage drop 19.39% to 9.88 %. The amount incurred on the scheme was Rs. 21,67,893/- and the work has been completed and the voltage of consumer has been improved to 407-410-408 that was checked on 24.10.2009. The load is technically permissible and possible which also approaches to 415 volts i.e. standard voltage. That the augmentation of 30 mm Sq. ACSR to 65 mm Sq. ACSR has been carried out. Length of 5 First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009 ACSR has been replaced to 32.626 Km. Rest of 13 mm sq. ACSR is also going to be replaced with 30 mm sq. ACSR. The District Forum failed to appreciate the above stated facts and its findings to the contrary are against law and facts and it was prayed that the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order of the District Forum may be set aside.
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and perused the record of the learned District Forum. We have also heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The respondent was ex- parte.
8. It is admitted fact that the tubewell connection was installed in the name of the respondent having connected load of 5 BHP. It is also admitted fact that the respondent has applied for the increase of the load from 5BHP to 7.5 BHP. It is also admitted fact that the respondent had deposited Rs. 3000/- vide receipt No. 552/80560 dated 26.6.2006 under VDS scheme Ex. C-2. Perusal of the record shows that the respondent has deposited Rs. 2400/- on 29.12.2004 vide receipt No. 25873976 for the increase of load from 3 BHP to 5 BHP Ex. C-4. The respondent has also deposited Rs. 3000/- vide receipt No. 201/80558 dated 21.6.2007 to increase the load of 7.5 BHP to 10 BHP Ex. C-3. It is also admitted fact that some villagers have also sent the letters to increase the load Ex. C-5,C-6 and C-7 under the VDS scheme any consumer can increase the load as per the concessional rate at that time. As per L.D. system if any improvement is required then the board is at liberty to act upon as per the instructions of the board. We have perused the complaint of the respondent. In his complaint, the respondent had mentioned in para No. 5 of the complaint that the paddy season is coming and the respondent was in dire need for the increasement of the voltage. On the other hand and in view of the problem of 6 First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009 the villagers the appellant-PSEB Sub Division Suburban, Banga prepared a master plan of Jandiala feeder from where the said consumer was given electricity supply. The plan got sanctioned from Chief Engineer/North, Jalandhar vide Est. No. 91025/09-10 and sent letter No. 7766 dated 20.05.2009 to AE Nawanshahr for improving voltage. The amount incurred on the scheme was Rs. 21,67,893/- as per Annexure-A2. The respondent has not suffered any loss still so far. The District Forum has not considered these facts and the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
9. In view of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the order of the learned District Forum under appeal is set aside. Consequently, the complaint of the respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.11.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member November 28 , 2013 kalyan 7 First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009
3. In the written version filed on behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the electric connection bearing Account No. SG-56/428N was installed in the premises of respondent which was checked vide L.C.R. No. 2553 dated 18.01.2006 and it was admitted that during the time of checking it was detected that meter was dead on two phases and was recording consumption only on one phase. As the meter was not recording consumption on two phases, so the account of the respondent was overhauled for the period 8/2005 to 12/2005 by multiplying the consumption already recorded x 2 and after overhauling the account a sum of Rs. 26,722/- was debited to the account of the respondent for the period 8/2005 to 12/2005 as per details given below :-
Sale of Power : Rs. 24,056/-
Electricity Duly : Rs. 2,406/-
Octroi : Rs. 260/-
--------------
Total : Rs. 26,722______
8
First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009
4. It was admitted that the notice was sent to the respondent vide Memo No. 369 dated 31.01.2006 to deposit Rs. 26,722/-. It was submitted that the detail of Rs. 26,722/- was explained to the respondent so the demand raised by the appellant is legal and valid. It was further pleaded that the respondent was in arrears of electricity charges of Rs. 26,722/-, so the appellants are legally entitled to disconnect the electric connection of the respondent. Other allegations were denied by the appellant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their contentions.
6. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 04.01.2007 accepted the complaint and the demand of Rs. 26,722/- raised by the appellant was quashed. The appellant was given liberty to approach the Chief Electrical Inspector in terms of the rules and regulations within two months from the receipt of copy of order.
7. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 04.01.2007, the appellant has come up in the appeal.
8. The appeal was filed by the appellant on the following grounds :
" That the learned District Forum has completely ignored the factual position of the dispute and passed the impugned order on technicalities and that too without appreciating the material available on record. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed being illegal and against the provision of law. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that it is a admitted case of 9 First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009 the parties that the meter was checked and it was found that two phases of the meter were dead which is also evident from the checking report. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that no illegal demand was ever made by the appellant or its officials. That the respondent has no local standi to approach the District Forum as the respondent himself is the defaulter of the appellant board. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and prayed that the appeal may be accepted and the order of the District Forum may be set aside. "
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and perused the record of the learned District Forum. We have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondent and also heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent. Neither counsel for the appellant nor any body on behalf of the appellant appeared at the time of arguments.
10. Perusal of the record shows that the electric connection bearing No. SG56/428N with having connected load 7.6 K.W. was installed in the premises of the respondent under DS category. The respondent has placed on record the bill Ex. C-2 for the period 3.8.2005 to 3.10.2005 for 1891 units and bill dated 3.10.2005 to 3.12.2005 for 444 units in which the status of the meter is shown as OK. As per the checking report on 08.01.2006 Ex. R-2 it was detected that the meter of the respondent was dead on two phases and was recording consumption only on one phase. On the basis of the above checking report, the appellant has overhauled the account of the respondent for the period from 8/2005 to 12/2005.
11. In respect of non-operative, a dead stopped or burnt meter Sales Regulation 73.1.2 is applicable which was amended vide Circular 54/2003. 10 First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009 According to the Sales Regulation 73.1.2 "so far as the charging of the consumer for the period, the meter remained in operative is concerned the average consumption of the last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption as under and higher of the two figures shall be charged to set the consumer's Accounts right finally."
12. On the basis of above Rules & Regulations, the appellant calculated the amount of the respondent on average basis Ex. R-4. The appellant has placed the ledger meter reading record which shows the reading of the meter which was calculated on the basis of consumption by the respondent Ex. R-3. On the basis of the above calculation, a demand notice dated 31.1.2006 for Rs. 26, 722/- was sent to the respondent which is justified. The District Forum vide its impugned order dated 04.01.2007 observed that the Chief Electrical Inspector is the statutory authority to decide the dispute but ignored and did not take notice of the fact that under the Electricity Act, 2003 there is no provision for referring the dead or burnt meter to the Chief Electrical Inspector. So the order of the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is accepted and the impugned order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent is dismissed. No order as to costs.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 09.09.2013 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.
11First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member September 18 , 2013 kalyan 12 First Appeal No. 1611 of 2009