State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs Gurmit Singh on 28 February, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.829 of 2019
Date of institution : 20.12.2019
Reserved On : 31.01.2022
Date of decision : 28.02.2022
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala
through its Chairman/Managing Director, PIN Code-147001.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer/Operation, Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, City Sub Division, Ferozepur-152002.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Gurmit Singh, aged 66 years, son of Sh. Wajinder Singh, resident of
House No.47, Ward No.16, Adarsh Nagar, (Dhawan Colony),
Ferozepur City, Tehsil and District Ferozepur, Mobile No.97815-
39899.
....Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal under Section 15 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the
order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum (now, "Commission") Ferozepur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
First Appeal No.829 of 2019 2
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes/No
Argued By:-
For the appellants : Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Piyush Sharma, Advocate.
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
The appellants/opposite parties i.e. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) through its Chairman/Managing Director and Assistant Executive Engineer/Operation, PSPCL have approached this Commission by way of filing the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") to challenge the impugned order dated 18.07.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No.528 of 2018 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now, "Commission"), Ferozepur (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the said complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed with the directions to the opposite parties to overhaul the account of the complainant and withdraw the demand for consumption charges regarding 9280 units as difference of reading of old meter and correct the bill. A further direction was also issued to adjust the amount if any deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties in the subsequent bills. The compliance of the order was directed to be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which First Appeal No.829 of 2019 3 the complainant was held entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Act.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the complaint are that the respondent/complainant was using the electricity in his house under Account No.3002920200, which was installed in the name of previous owner of said house namely Kartar Singh with sanctioned load of 18 KWs. Said house was purchased by the complainant and thereafter a written request was made for transferring the connection in his name. He was regularly paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties. It has further been mentioned that the complainant received electricity bill dated 05.12.2017 worth ₹4,920/- for a period of 38 days w.e.f. 28.10.2017 to 05.12.2017 for consumption of 686 units. The said amount was deposited with the appellants/opposite parties against proper receipt. Thereafter, in the month of January, 2018, the meter reader of the opposite parties came to the premises of the complainant for checking of meter reading and disclosed to the complainant that his meter was not running properly. Thereafter, the complainant moved an application to opposite party No.2 and electric meter was removed by the officials of the opposite parties and new meter was installed in his house. It has further been mentioned that neither the old meter was sealed nor packed by the First Appeal No.829 of 2019 4 officials of the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant nor the complainant was asked to be present at the time of checking of electricity meter in M.E. Lab. of the opposite parties. The respondent/complainant received electricity bill dated 03.04.2018 of ₹82,980/-, which was for a period of 119 days w.e.f. 05.12.2017 to 03.04.2018 by showing the consumption of 1231 units. For that reason, the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and asked for details to rectify the electricity bill being on excessive side but no response was there. However, the complainant was asked by opposite party No.2 to deposit the current energy charges, with the assurance that the electricity bill would be rectified. The complainant deposited the amount. Thereafter, the electricity bill dated 05.05.2018 of ₹81,900/- was also received for the period of only 32 days w.e.f. 03.04.2018 to 05.05.2018, wherein an amount of ₹1,255/- had been shown as arrears of previous year and an amount of ₹73,297/- towards arrears of current financial year besides an amount of ₹7,349/- of current cycle charges. The complainant thereafter received further electricity bill dated 31.05.2018 worth ₹85,600/- for a period of 26 days, wherein an amount of ₹2,510/- was reflected as arrears of previous year and ₹73,195/- towards arrears of current financial year and also an amount of ₹9,896/- as current cycle charges. Thereafter again, the complainant received current electricity bill dated 30.06.2018 for an amount of ₹91,640/- for a period of 30 days w.e.f. First Appeal No.829 of 2019 5 31.05.2018 to 30.06.2018. However, the said amount was deposited and request was also made to withdraw the said electricity bills and to overhaul his account as per Rules and Regulations of the appellants/opposite parties but still his request was not considered. When no action was taken, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission with the prayer to overhaul his account and to adjust the excess amount received by the opposite parties and also to pay compensation of ₹50,000/- for causing mental agony, pain and harassment as well as litigation expenses of ₹5,500/-.
4. In response to notice issued to the opposite parties, joint reply was filed wherein the allegations levelled in the complaint were disputed, stating that it was not a case of deficiency in service and complicated questions of law and facts were involved in the complaint.
5. On appraisal of arguments raised by both the sides and by considering evidence produced by them on record, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed, vide impugned order dated 18.07.2019 and the appellants/opposite parties were directed to overhaul the account of the complainant and withdraw the demand for consumption charges regarding 9280 units as difference of reading of old meter and correct the bill after adjusting the amount if any so deposited by the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant was First Appeal No.829 of 2019 6 held entitled to proceed further in view of provisions of Section 25 and 27 of the Act.
6. Said order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the appellants/opposite parties by way of filing the present appeal by raising various grounds.
7. There was a delay of 104 days in filing of the appeal. A separate M.A. No.2697 of 2019 was filed along with the appeal for condonation of delay of 104 days in filing the appeal. Said application was allowed vide order dated 07.01.2020 and the delay of 104 days in filing the appeal was condoned, subject to costs of ₹10,400/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.
8. M.A. No.2699 of 2019 was also filed by the appellants for placing on record some documents as additional evidence, which was ordered to be heard along with main case, vide order dated 07.01.2020.
9. Mr. Vaibhav Narang, learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submits that the learned District Commission has not decided the issue regarding maintainability of the complaint and the complaint has been allowed by keeping that issue aside. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent/complainant purchased the house along with electricity connection from one Kartar Singh but the electricity connection was not transferred in his name and the same is still existing in the name of Kartar Singh, from whom First Appeal No.829 of 2019 7 the house was purchased. Learned counsel further submits that as per Instruction No.30.4 of the Electricity Supply Instruction Manual 2017, the connection was required to be transferred in case the property in dispute was transferred. An application was to be submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties for transfer of electric connection and in the absence thereof, the connection was considered as unauthorized and the same was liable to be disconnected. In the present case also, the electric connection was not transferred from the name of earlier owner of the house, whereas it was required to the transferred within a period of 30 days from the date of purchase of the house and till date, it has not been transferred so far. Learned counsel also submits that the complaint was not maintainable, in view of order passed by this Commission in F.A. No No.697 of 2018 tiled as Rakesh Kumar v. PSPCL & Anr. decided on 22.04.2019, wherein it was held that the complainant, in such circumstances, cannot be considered to be 'consumer'. However, this issue was not decided by the District Commission in-spite of objection raised by the appellants/opposite parties. It has further been argued that the District Commission has wrongly applied Regulation No.93 of the Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, according to which separate bill was to be issued by giving complete details. Learned counsel also submits that the meter was changed on 11.01.2018 and new meter number was entered in the computer and first bill was generated thereafter in the month of April, First Appeal No.829 of 2019 8 which was exhibited as Ex.C/3 with the complaint. On perusal of said bill Ex.C/3, the new status of old meter reading was 111509 and old status was 102229. According to that change of the meter, the complainant was required to pay the consumption charges of total 9280 units. The bill was raised by considering the consumption of 9280 units and on the basis of that reading, the bill was prepared and the same was sent to the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that instead of making payment of the bill amount, the complaint was filed by the complainant. It is also the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that Regulation 93.1 is applicable only where the arrears are on account of under assessment or demand/load surcharge or due to some defect in the meter or due to application of wrong tariff or due to mistake in connection or also due to some other irregularity/malpractice etc. In the present case, none of the situations is there. Accordingly, Regulation 93.1 is not applicable in the present case. No such evidence was produced by the respondent/complainant to show that the electric meter was removed, packed and sealed in the absence of the complainant or his representative. Proper procedure was followed and intimation was sent to the complainant regarding change of his meter. The complainant himself had tendered one affidavit, which was duly attested by Notary Public on 05.01.2018, wherein it was stated by the complainant that his meter be checked in M.E. Lab. His request was First Appeal No.829 of 2019 9 accepted as he undertook not to challenge the same before any Court. Thereafter, the complainant gave his consent, vide letter dated 21.05.2018, stating that he had no objection in case the meter was checked in his absence. Learned counsel further submits that the District Commission has not taken into consideration all these factors, while passing the impugned order. The complaint made by the complainant was for checking of the meter from M.E. Lab., as it was running slow. At the end, learned counsel submits that by considering all these facts and arguments, the order passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside.
10. Mr. Piyush Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants, stating that the order passed by the District Commission is based on reasoning by giving categorical findings and no interference is required. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent/complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly without any lapse on his part. A written request was also made for changing the name of the previous owner of the house as well as by changing the name in the meter connection also. Learned counsel also submits that intimation of purchase of the house along with electric connection was given to the opposite parties but no action was taken. The meter reader of PSPCL checked the meter and it was disclosed by him that the reading of electricity meter was not working properly. First Appeal No.829 of 2019 10 An application was also moved and on the basis of said application, the electric meter of the complainant was removed by the officials of the PSPCL and new electric meter was installed at the spot. Still no action was taken. Learned counsel further submits that the issue of over-billing was brought to the notice of the appellants/opposite parties but it was not considered. When no action was taken, the respondent/complainant was compelled to knock the doors of the District Commission. Learned counsel also submits that old meter was removed, packed and sealed in the absence of the complainant and his family members. The arrears of old meter were included, whereas there was fault with the old meter. Regulation 93.1 is relevant in such circumstances. Learned counsel further submits that the submission made by the appellants regarding removal, packing and sealing of the meter in the presence of the complainant was not correct, as the documents appended as Annexures A-3 and A-4 were not part of the record, as these documents are ante dated and the same cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel also submits that there are only 4 members in the family of the complainant, including himself and the consumption of units used to be between 650-1300, which is evident from bills Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6. As per M.E. Lab. Report i.e. Ex.C-9, it was found that the meter was running slow. The respondent/complainant had already paid the bills up to the reading of 102229 till 05.12.2017 and on removal of meter on 10.01.2018, the First Appeal No.829 of 2019 11 reading was 111509, which was due to slow running of the meter. Said reading was only within a short period of 36 days. The bills Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 are much more than the actual consumption and, as such, the order passed by the District Commission requires no interference and the same has been passed with detailed findings. At the end, learned counsel submits that keeping in view the detailed reasoning as mentioned in the impugned order passed by the District Commission and also the submissions made by him, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. We have also carefully perused the impugned order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the District Commission, written arguments filed by both the parties and other documents available on the file.
12. The order passed by the District Commission has been challenged by the appellants on the ground of maintainability of the complaint by stating that the complaint was not maintainable, as the complainant purchased the house from one Kartar Singh and electricity connection was not transferred in the name of complainant and the same was still continuing in the name of Kartar Singh. The complainant never gave any intimation regarding purchase of electric connection and the same is violation of Instruction No.30.4 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, 2017, which is reproduced as follow:
First Appeal No.829 of 2019 12
"30.4: In the event of transfer of a property, the transferee shall submit an application in form PCL-CON along with A&A Form and the following documents:-
a) Letter of consent of the previous owner for transfer of connection;
b) In the absence of a letter of consent, the transferee shall provide proof of ownership of premises. In case of partition, details thereof or a family partition deed if any, may be submitted;
c) In case the consent of the previous owner for transfer of the Security (Consumption) cannot be produced, the applicant shall deposit Security (Consumption) and Security (Meter) at prevalent rates. He will also be liable to pay the outstanding dues, if any of the previous consumer.
d) In the case of land having an AP/AP-High-tech connection being jointly owned by more than one person and a part of the land along with the AP/AP-High-tech connection thereon being sold, the connection may be transferred in the name of the purchased if all the co-sharers consent to such transfer and submit an affidavit duly attested by a Magistrate to that effect.
e) In the event where benefit of agreement for a connection is assigned to another person without the approval of the PSPCL, a notice shall be served upon the consumer requiring that transfer of the connection be sought as per the procedure prescribed above within 30 days of the service of notice. The connection shall be liable to be disconnected in case no application is submitted to the Distribution Licensee within the period indicated in the notice."First Appeal No.829 of 2019 13
13. On perusal of said Instruction, for transfer of a property, the transferee is to submit an application to the PSPCL on Form PCL- CON along with A&A Form and some other documents including letter of consent of previous owner. In absence of such transfer, the electric connection is to be considered unauthorized and the electric connection is to be disconnected.
14. However, in the present case, the application was submitted by the respondent/complainant for transfer of the electric connection in his name from the name of the person from whom he purchased the said house but it was not considered and no transfer was made by the appellants/opposite parties, whereas the transfer was required to be done within a period of 30 days from the date of purchase of the house. The appellants/opposite parties failed to transfer the electric connection in the name of the respondent/complainant despite submission of the application. The fault was of the appellants/opposite parties.
15. As far as letter and affidavit Annexures A/3 and A/4 produced by the appellants/opposite parties in additional evidence are concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that firstly the signatures on both these documents do not tally with other. Secondly, the signatures on these documents also do not match with the signatures of the complainant put on the complaint, affidavit filed in support of complaint as well as application for grant of stay of disconnection of the electric First Appeal No.829 of 2019 14 connection, which were filed before the District Commission. Therefore, the authenticity of documents Annexures A/3 and A/4 produced by the appellants is doubted. Even if it is presumed that the complainant gave his consent to check the meter in the ME Lab. in his absence, even then the appellants cannot derive much benefit from documents Annexures A/3 and A/4, as it is not a case of theft of electricity or use of unauthorized load by the consumer/complainant. In the instant case, the matter pertains to wrong recording of meter reading in the meter installed in the premises of the complainant, for which the complainant requested the appellants/opposite parties a number of times to get it corrected and thereafter the meter was replaced and got checked in the M.E. Lab. The opposite parties kept on sending bills on the basis of wrong reading recorded in the meter without verifying the actual consumption of electricity, which amounts to 'deficiency in service' on their part.
16. Instruction No.30.4 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, 2017 is also relevant in the present case, which is reproduced above and the lapse was on the part of the appellants/opposite parties and not of respondent/complainant.
17. It is also pertinent to mention that the bills were issued from time to time and payments thereof were also made by the respondent/complainant, which were never objected. Meaning thereby the appellants/opposite parties were well aware that the name of the First Appeal No.829 of 2019 15 respondent/complainant was not changed/transferred and it was the fault of the appellants/opposite parties only. Mode of payment of arrears not originally billed is provided under Instruction No.93.1 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, which is reproduced as under:
"93. PAYMENT OF ARREARS NOT ORIGINALLY BILLED:
93.1: There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months./years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/unauthorized use of electricity or demand / load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/multiplication factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc. In all such cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges shall be shown as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills shall be issued separately giving complete details of the charges in regard to theft cases, slowness of meters, wrong connections of the meter and unauthorized of use electricity etc. In such cases the copy of relevant instructions under which the charges have been levied shall also be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of cases by consumer forums if approached by the consumer."
18. On perusal of said provision, it is clear that in certain cases, where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous period as arrears, the same may be on account of under First Appeal No.829 of 2019 16 assessment or unauthorized use of electricity or due to fault/negligence of PSPCL employees or even due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff or even due to any mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices, the separate bills are required to be issued by giving complete details of the charges so levied. Such charges are considered as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills are required to be issued separately by giving complete details of the charges even in case where allegations of theft are there or slowness in the meter or wrong connections of meter and unauthorized use of electricity. In such situations, the copy of relevant instructions is required to be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of the case but in the present case, it was not done. Neither the details were supplied nor any intimation thereof was given to the complainant. Even no supplementary bills were issued by giving complete details of the charges. The meter was changed/replaced, as it was running slow. Without giving any details or even supplying any instruction, the separate bills were not sent whereas supplementary bills should have been issued with all details.
19. Instruction No.93.2 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual is relating to the period of limitation as provided under Section 56(2) of the Act. As per said provision, the amount First Appeal No.829 of 2019 17 sought to be recovered cannot be recovered after a period of two years from the date when such amount became due for the first time, unless the same has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied. Meaning thereby, such amount which is sought to be recovered is to be reflected continuously as arrears of charges for the electricity supplied and maximum period for recovery is two years. In case, the consumer finds any difficulty to make payment of arrears in lump sum, he/she may move application for allowing the payment of such arrears in easy instalments. In such a situation, a representation is required to be made from the consumer side within the grace period of 10/15 days of receipt of the bill. A notice to this effect is required to be incorporated on the bill itself.
20. Instruction No.93.3 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual is relevant in this context, which is reproduced as under:
"93.3 Allowing Installments for Supplementary Assessment:
The consumer may sometimes find it difficult to make payment of such arrears in lump sum and may make representation for allowing the payment of such arrears to be made in installments. Such a representation must come from the consumer within the grace period i.e. within 10/15 days of the receipt of the bill. A notice to this effect shall be incorporated on the bill itself. However, it may be clarified that the representation shall not entitle stay to the consumer from the payment of installment(s). In fact the consumer seeking First Appeal No.829 of 2019 18 installments shall deposit not less than 25% of the billed amount so as to show his earnestness to pay the assessed amount in installments.
21. It is also relevant to mention here that in case any arrears are due, the responsibility of the same is required to be fixed as to who was the officer/official responsible for the delay. The loss so suffered by the department be recovered from the concerned employee/employees as per opinion/observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as expressed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported as 2010 (5) SCC 459 and Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta AIR 1994 SC 787. Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.K. Gupta's case (supra) held as under:
"When the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payers' money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law. It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries."
22. As per Regulation No.21.4 (d), in case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the licensee laboratory, First Appeal No.829 of 2019 19 the consumer is required to be informed of the proposed date of testing at least 7 days in advance. The signatures of the consumer or his authorized representative, if present, would be obtained on the test result sheet and copy thereof is required to be supplied to the consumer or his representative.
23. Before adding sundry charges in electricity bills of the complainant, not only show-cause notice is required to be issued to the consumer before imposing penalty but the provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was also required to be served upon the consumer/complainant, as has been observed in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v. Dinesh Sharma 2016 (2) CLT 429, which is reproduced as under:
"7. This argument is of no use. The appellants have failed to show any notice issued to the complainant before imposing the penalty. Our Hon'ble High Court has also opined in Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is required before imposing the penalty and an order about recovery should be passed after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person who was likely to be affected thereby. In the present case, the appellants- O.Ps. have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant. In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency in service. Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case."
24. In the present case, no such show-cause notice was issued to the complainant, which amounts to not only 'deficiency in service' but the same is also contrary to the provisions of Electricity First Appeal No.829 of 2019 20 Supply Instructions Manual and other Rules and Regulations of PSPCL. The appellants/opposite parties have also failed to show that any such notice was ever issued to the complainant before imposing the penalty upon him. The appellants/opposite parties have also failed to show that previous reading of defective meter was correct or not. Meaning thereby the opposite parties have failed to do so as per provisions contained in the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual/Electricity Act, which also amounts to 'deficiency in service'. Moreover, the opposite parties could not charge any amount of previous dues or any arrears without issuing/giving any supplementary bill and without issuing the show-cause notice by mentioning the details of the charges. Nothing has been brought on record in the grounds of appeal as well as in the arguments or in reply of complaint to show that the opposite parties produced any evidence or document, which can prove that they issued any supplementary bill or any show- cause notice to the complainant giving complete details of the amount charged by them as arrears of consumption.
25. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the authority concerned to satisfy itself regarding the accuracy of a meter before it is installed at the consumer premises. The Distribution Licensees are required to set up some accredited testing laboratories or utilize the services of other testing laboratories, if necessary. Thereafter, the necessary action was required to be taken if necessary. After testing in the First Appeal No.829 of 2019 21 laboratory, the body of the meter is required to be duly sealed by the officer concerned or the person authorized to do so. No doubt, the Distribution Licensee has a right to test any consumer meter and related equipment, either at the site or in the laboratory, in case there is a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the meter. In such situation, the consumer is also required to cooperate in conducting the test. During such exercise, the consumer has a right to be present during such testing and thereafter a copy of testing result undertaking the accuracy of the meter is required to be provided to the consumer. However, a consumer may also make request for testing of the meter in case there is a doubt about the accuracy. The Distribution Licensee either undertakes the test at the site or in the laboratory within the prescribed period, as provided. In case, the consumer is not satisfied with the site testing of the meter installed, the meter is to be removed and packed/sealed in the presence of the consumer or occupier of the premises for testing in the laboratory. In such a situation, another meter which is duly tested is required to be installed at the premises of such consumer. In the event of any such apprehension regarding tampering of meter or its seals, then the packing containing the meter is required to be jointly sealed by the Distribution Licensee and the consumer/occupier of the premises. The proposed date of testing is necessary to be intimated to the consumer. In case, the seal is to be removed, the same is to be done in the presence of the consumer or First Appeal No.829 of 2019 22 his or her authorized representative within the prescribed period from the date of removal of meter from the premises of the consumer.
26. In case of incorrect meters, if the meter on testing is found to be beyond the limit of accuracy as prescribed, the account of the consumer is to be overhauled and the electricity charges are required to be computed in accordance with the test results for the period of not exceeding six months.
27. All these provisions have not been followed/complied with by the appellant/opposite parties and huge amount by way of bills have been sent to the consumer/complainant without giving any details thereof. Meaning thereby the instructions as provided under the Manual have not been followed. All these factors are required to be taken into consideration. The District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint.
28. In view of the detailed discussion as mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellants. The reasoning given by the District Commission in the impugned order dated 18.07.2019 is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record and the provisions as provided in the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, as reproduced above. No interference is required in the impugned order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the District Commission.
First Appeal No.829 of 2019 23
29. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and the impugned order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the District Commission is upheld.
30. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases and pandemic of COVID-19.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (URVASHI AGNIHOTRI) MEMBER February 28, 2022.
(Gurmeet S)