State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Darshan Singh on 23 July, 2013
1
First Appeal No. 383 of 2010
1st Additional Bench
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHAN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 383 of 2010
Date of institution : 11.03.2010
Date of decision : 23.07.2013
Punjab State Electricity Board through its :
1. Senior Executive Engineer (Distribution) PSEB Malout, District Muktsar
2. Sub Divisional Officer, PSEB, City Sub Division, Malout, District Muktsar.
.....Appellants/OPs
Versus
Darshan Singh son of Sh. Inder Singh resident of Street No. 3, Sarabha
Nagar, Malout, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar.
.......Respondent/complainant
First Appeal against the order dated 06.11.2009
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Muktsar
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member ...................................
Present:-
For the appellant :
Sh. R.K.Sharma, Advocate
For the respondent :
Sh. Adarsh Batra, Advocate with
Sh. Darshan Singh, In person
------------------------------------ ----------- VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER:-
This appeal was filed by the appellants/OPs (hereinafter called appellants) under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 06.11.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short the District Forum) vide which the complaint was allowed.2
First Appeal No. 383 of 2010
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant (hereinafter called respondent) was the holder of residential electric connection bearing A/c No. Y33AN270392 W and having sanctioned load of 7.10 KW. Respondent was paying all the electric consumption bills regularly and nothing was due against him. He was paying electric bills around Rs. 3000/-. The bill dated 01.02.2008 was received from the appellant on average basis amounting to Rs. 6417/- with the old reading of 9076 units and new reading of 1309 units mentioned on it. Respondent approached the appellant No. 2 (Sub Divisional Officer, PSEB, City Sub Division Malout) (hereinafter called appellant No. 2) who assured him to adjust the amount in next coming bill after correction of the reading. Respondent received bill dated 04.04.2008 with the old reading of 1309 units and new of 13305 units amounting to Rs. 54930/-. In this bill total consumption was shown as 11996 units. The respondent again met appellant No. 2, who asked the respondent to pay Rs. 8729/-. Respondent deposited this amount with the appellants. The respondent was complaining regularly about the incorrect reading of the meter and was requesting for change of the electric meter. It was stated that on the direction of the appellant No. 2, one employee named Parkash after calculations reported for refund of Rs. 51,000/- to the respondent on the basis of the bill dated 01.08.2008 and recommended for not to disconnect the electric connection. The appellants changed his electric meter on 05.06.2008 and the respondent deposited Rs. 450/- as meter checking fee. It was alleged by the respondent that the appellants checked the meter in his absence and made report dated 19.08.2008 stating that due to inner defect in the meter on IQ load the meter pulse was dead on two phases. The meter pulse on three phases is working and counter was closed. The correct results could not be taken due to defective meter and recommended for necessary action which clearly shows that the respondent was being burdened with excess amount due to defective meter. The respondent filed the present complaint seeking direction 3 First Appeal No. 383 of 2010 to the appellants to refund Rs. 51,000/- and to refund the amount charged in excess from the respondent from the date of installation of meter No. 2869777 till its change i.e. 5.6.2008 after compiling the reading of electric consumption with the new meter and pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the appellants replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable. The respondent has no cause of action to file the complaint against the appellants. The respondent has concealed the material facts from the District Forum. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On merit, it was admitted that due to the technical mistake of the electricity machine the amount was inadvertently excessively put into the account No. 33AN/270392 of the respondent in the month of February, 2008. It was stated that the amount of Rs. 51709/- and on 8.8.2009 an amount of Rs. 22085/- (with surcharge) were refunded to the respondent by the appellants and due to the difference in the reading of the meter of the respondent qua the technical mistake of the billing machine. It was further pleaded that the respondent is legally bound to pay the amount of the actual consumption. It was alleged that the false complaint has been filed by the respondent to harass and humiliate the appellants. The respondent has no cause of action to file the present complaint and there was no deficiency on the part of the appellants 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 06.11.2009 accepted the complaint and gave the observation and finding as under :
4First Appeal No. 383 of 2010
"Since refund already has been made by the appellants in the papers, which is evident from the calculations Ex. OP-5 where by Rs. 22085/- have been shown minus and Rs. 51709/- have been ordered to be refunded in the ledger entry dated 17.04.2008 or so. Thus this amount is to be reflected in the next coming bills. So the complaint is accepted in this regard. However, respondent is liable to make payment of current charges of all the electric bills."
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.11.2009, the present appeal was filed by the appellants on the following ground:
"That the learned District Forum has erred in law as well as on facts in accepting the complaint of the respondent, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed. The learned District Forum has totally misread and has not appreciated the over-whelming evidence brought on the record. The learned District Forum has wrongly directed the appellant to re-collect the entries in the coming bill. The reverse entry were to be made only once and these has been carried out in the electricity bill dated 02.06.2008 and 01.09.2009. The learned District Forum has lost sight of the fact that the respondent made payment of Rs. 8729/- on 17.04.2008 and stopped making the payment of electricity bill. Thereafter, till now the respondent is in arrears of Rs. 41,548/- and prayed for that the order of the learned District Forum may be set aside. "
8. 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 respondent.
5First Appeal No. 383 of 2010
9. It is admitted fact that the respondent is the holder of electric domestic connection bearing A/c No. Y33AN270392 W and having sanctioned load of 7.10 KW. Perusal of the record shows that the bill dated 4.4.2008 was sent by the appellant to the respondent for Rs. 54930/- (Ex. C-5). The appellant adjusted Rs. 51,709/- in bill dated 02.06.2008 in the bill column in sundry charges. Due to the defective meter, the meter was sent to the ME Lab on 5.6.2008 and the report of the ME Lab is dated 19.8.2008 in which it was stated that due to the inner defect in the meter on IQ load the meter pulse was dead on two phases. The meter pulse on three phases was working and the counter was closed (Mark-A). An electricity bill dated 01.08.2008 was sent to the respondent for Rs. 38100/- on average basis. The appellant also adjusted Rs. 22085/- in the bill dated 01.09.2009 as Ex. OP-5. It was contended by the counsel for the appellants that Rs. 41,548/- is still outstanding against the respondent.
10. As per the interim order dated 16.07.2010 of this Commission, both the parties were directed to reconcile the calculations. The appellants in compliance with the above direction of this Commission made the calculations for the period 29.9.2007 to 01.12.2008 and 1/2009 to 5/2010 and wrote a letter Memo No. 371 dated 26.07.2010 to the respondent and also supplied the copy of the calculations and after reconciling, the total amount of Rs. 27,634/- was still outstanding against the respondent which he is liable to pay.
11. In view of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellants is partly accepted and the order under appeal is modified to the extent that the appellants are to recover Rs. 27,634/- which is still outstanding against the respondent and respondent is liable to pay this amount in addition to the payment of the current charges of all the electricity bills as per the consumption. With this modification the appeal is disposed of.
6First Appeal No. 383 of 2010
12. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 12.07.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
13. 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 July 23 , 2013 kalyan 7 First Appeal No. 383 of 2010