State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurcharan Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & ... on 20 February, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.374 of 2021
Date of institution : 27.10.2021
Date of Reserve : 01.02.2023
Date of decision : 20.02.2023
Gurcharan Singh son of Sh.Sardari Lal, aged 78 years, resident of
H.No.1181/1, Harnam Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana (Punjab).
.......Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through its
Chairman/M.D.
2. The Additional Superintending Engineer (OP), Punjab State Power
Corporation Ltd., Model Town (West), Model Town Division,
Ludhiana.
3. Er.Daljit Kaur, Assistant Executive Engineer, Office of Addl.
Superintending Engineer (OP), Model Town West Division,
Ludhiana.
.......Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal U/S 41 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 against the
Order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
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 Present :-
For the appellant : None For the respondents : Ms.Deepshivjyot Mann, Advocate for Sh.T.S.Sidhu, Advocate F.A.No.374 of 2021 2 JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT Appellant/Complainant-Gurcharan Singh has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short 'The Act') being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (in short 'the District Commission') whereby the complaint filed by him was dismissed.
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 by the appellant/complainant-Gurcharan Singh before the District Commission are that he made a written request vide letter dated 25.07.2017 to the OPs stating therein that the meter installed at his premises was running fast and same be got checked. Respondents/OPs deputed the Junior Engineer who inspected the metering equipment and prepared a report No.80/712 dated 14.08.2017 and recommended for testing of the meter in the ME lab. For that purpose the complainant deposited the required amount on 12.08.2017 (Ex.C-2). The meter was changed on 22.08.2017 vide order dated 17.08.2017 (Ex.C-4). It was also mentioned in the complaint that meter was not sealed after its removal and it was not checked in the ME lab even after a lapse of period of 4 years whereas as per the relevant instructions issued by the respondents, it was required to be checked within a period of 7 days for its removal. Further, it was mentioned that the complainant received bill dated 03.10.2017 for Rs.33,910/- for the period from 03.07.2017 to F.A.No.374 of 2021 3 30.10.2017. The last date of payment of bill amount was 10.11.2017 but it was delivered on 09.11.2017 only. As per the version of the complainant the amount was deposited on 09.11.2017 itself through cheque but it was returned by the bank due to some technical reason and the meter was disconnected. Thereafter he deposited an amount of Rs.34,865/- by way of demand draft and the supply was restored. Thereafter, stating therein that no notice was issued for disconnection of electricity supply as per requirement of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and certain allegations were also made stating to be a case of 'deficiency in service' on the part of OPs alleging allegations of harassment caused to the complainant. The complaint was filed with the prayer to issue directions to OPs to get the meter of the complainant got tested from the ME lab which was removed on 14.08.2017 and also to pay amount for damages for causing harassment and mental agony by disconnecting the electricity supply and also to pay compensation. A request was also made that amount so paid by the complainant be adjusted against the bill to be issued in the future.
4. The said complaint was contested by respondents/OPs by raising certain preliminary objections and by denying the averments made in the complaint.
5. By considering the contents of the complaint and reply thereof and arguments raised by the counsel for the complainant and the OPs, the complaint was dismissed vide order dated 03.09.2021. F.A.No.374 of 2021 4
6. The said order has been challenged by the complainant before this Commission in the appeal by raising a number of grounds.
7. The appeal was sent by post and thereafter none has appeared on behalf of the appellant. It has been mentioned in the grounds of appeal sent by post that the District Commission has not taken into consideration the averments made in the complaint. The removed meter was not checked in the ME lab inspite of making request and time of more than 4 years was consumed which was contrary to instructions issued by the respondents/OPs as the meter was required to be checked within a period of 7 days after its removal. The respondents/OPs has asked the complainant to be present in the ME lab at the time of testing of the meter on 10.07.2018 and the letter was sent through registered post on 10.07.2018 itself and it was received on 16.07.2018. The said letter was also responded by stating that the date of checking of meter was 10.07.2018 but the complainant could not be present in the ME lab as letter was received later on as it was sent on the day when he was asked to be present. It was received after the date of checking of meter. The ground has also been taken that the amount of bill dated 30.10.2017 for the period from 03.07.2017 to 30.10.2017 was paid on 11.09.2017 against proper receipt (Ex.P-8) and thereafter another bill dated 03.01.2018 for the period from 30.10.2018 to 03.01.2018 was also paid on 11.11.2018 (Ex.C-11). Another bill dated 23.02.2018 was issued of an amount of Rs.35,120/- for the period from 30.10.2018 to 23.02.2018 (Ex.C-12). The appellant/complainant had already paid the amount for the period from 30.10.2017 to 03.01.2018 Ex.C-10, F.A.No.374 of 2021 5 Ex.C-11. The complainant was not liable to pay the consumption charges for the period from 30.10.2017 to 03.01.2018 but still his grievance was not redressed, but he was asked to deposit the bill then only he will be heard. It has further been mentioned in the grounds of appeal that application was moved for grant of ad-interim injunction to stay the order of disconnection of the electricity supply till further orders but it was stayed subject to deposit an amount of Rs.9,000/- on 22.03.2018 (EC-C13).
8. At the end it has been prayed that the order passed by the District Commission is contrary to evidence/documents/averments as made in the complaint and same be set aside. Further a prayer has also been made not only to set aside the order passed by the District Commission but also to issue direction to OPs to charge the bill dated 23.02.2018 after deducting the consumption for the period from 30.10.2017 to 03.01.2018 which had already been charged.
9. Ms.Deepshivjyot Mann, learned proxy counsel for the respondents/OPs submits that the order passed by the District Commission is well-reasoned and no interference is required. Written arguments have also been filed on behalf of the respondents that the meter of the appellant/complainant was changed/replaced on 22.08.2017 and thereafter it was sent to ME lab for testing. The appellant/complainant was informed telephonically but he did not come present in the ME lab and meter was got checked in his absence. A notice was issued to the appellant/complainant but still he did not come present on 02.07.2018 at 11:00 am. In the written arguments it has also been mentioned that appellant/complainant has F.A.No.374 of 2021 6 refused to receive the notice. Learned counsel has further submitted that the bill dated 30.10.2017 was for the period from 03.07.2017 to 30.10.2017 for consumption of 4505 units of 119 days and it was issued to the appellant/complainant for an amount of Rs.33,910/- and due date for deposit of the bill was 10.11.2017. The appellant/complainant had deposited the bill amount on 09.11.2017 through cheque, which was returned by the bank as unpaid. In the absence of any amount, the supply of the appellant/complainant was disconnected as per the relevant rules, but it was subsequently restored on depositing the amount of Rs.34,865/- by way of demand draft. In the subsequent bill dated 03.01.2018 of Rs.38,131/- and an amount of Rs.34,000/- was included as arrears of the previous period. This fact was also explained to the appellant/complainant when he came present in the office of the respondents Corporation. The amount paid by draft was also adjusted.
10. At the end it has been submitted by learned proxy counsel for the respondents that the frivolous complaint has been filed and it is not a case of any 'deficiency in service' on the part of respondents/OPs Corporation and amount had already been adjusted and it is not the case that it was accepted twice. The appeal is being devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. We have carefully perused the contents of the appeal sent by the appellant and have also perused the impugned order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the District Commission and other documents available on the file including the complaint and reply thereof. F.A.No.374 of 2021 7
12. By considering the contents of the appeal as well as averments made in the complaint it appears that the grievance of the appellant/complainant is that the meter was removed and sent to ME lab for checking without giving any prior intimation for remaining present at the time of testing of the meter. The letter/intimation was received on the day when meter was to be tested as it is clear from the letter itself. The complainant could not present on the day of testing of the meter as it was not sent well in time and this fact has also been proved on record from the date of letter and date of testing of meter. Nothing has been brought on record to show that appellant/complainant was having any information prior to the date of testing of the meter even no documents has been brought on record by the respondents/OPs to prove that he was aware about the date of testing of the meter. It appears that the defective meter was removed and it was sent to the ME lab for testing and on request of appellant/complainant the new meter was installed. Thereafter, subsequent bills were also issued for the period from 03.07.2017 to 30.10.2017 and the another bill dated 03.01.2018 for Rs.38,131/- but still it has been mentioned in the written submissions in para no.4 as submitted by respondent/OP that the amount so paid through draft has also adjusted. It has also been mentioned by respondents/OPs that inspite of repeated requests through telephone and also through memo dated 02.07.2018 the appellant/complainant did not come present to get the meter checked in his presence. It appears that the earlier meter was not checked whereas the appellant/complainant has agreed with the said meter.
F.A.No.374 of 20218
13. The only grievance in the complaint was that excessive bill was issued due to defective meter and same was not got tested in his presence. It has been proved on record that the appellant/complainant was not informed well in time for remaining his presence at the time of testing of the meter in ME lab as letter was sent on the date of testing of the meter and it could not be possible for him to be present as it was received after the date of checking of the meter.
14. A further grievance of the appellant/complainant is also that his connection was disconnected without giving prior notice of 15 days as per Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is clear cut case of violation of mandatory provisions. From the action of respondents/OPs it is apparent that the complainant was harassed not only in adjusting the amount well in time though subsequently adjusted as per the stand of the respondents/OPs but by disconnecting his connection without giving him prior notice.
15. Further, it has also been mentioned in the ground of appeal that by issuing directions to OPs to charge bill dated 23.02.2018 (Ex.C-
12) after deducting the consumption for the period from 30.10.2017 to 03.01.2018 which has already been paid in the bill dated 03.01.2018.
16. Accordingly, by considering the fact and circumstances of the present case we deem it appropriate to dispose of the present appeal with the directions to respondents/OPs to grant adequate opportunity to the appellant/complainant by sending intimation to be present at the time of testing of meter in the ME lab and F.A.No.374 of 2021 9 intimation be sent through registered post and thereafter receiving the report, the case of the appellant/complainant be reconsidered fresh after adjusting the amount already paid by considering the correct reading of the meter. It is also directed that till this exercise be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and no adverse order be passed to disconnect the domestic electricity connection.
17. Since the main case has been disposed of, so all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are accordingly, disposed of.
18. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER February 20, 2023 (Rupinder 2)