State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bal Krishan Sharma vs Punjab State Electricity Board on 24 March, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR-37A, CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2008
Date of Institution: 27.05.2008
Date of Decision: 24.03.2014
Bal Krishan Sharma, son of Sh.Yougeshwar Parkash, resident of
H.No.313 IB, Shivalik Avenue, Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar.
.....Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, Patiala.
2. S.D.O. Sub Divisional Officer, PSEB Nangal, Tehsil Nangal,
Distt. Ropar.
.....Respondents/Opposite Parties
First Appeal against the order
dated 4.2.2008 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Quorum:
Sh. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member
Smt. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:
For the appellant : Sh.Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate For the respondents : None BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short "District Forum"), vide which his complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was having an electric connection, bearing account No.BF-36/0364, at his residence and his normal bimonthly consumption varied between 700 unit and First Appeal No. 515 of 2008 Page 2 of 11 865 units in winter season and between 1800 units and 2300 units in the summer season. The total consumption in terms of units from 30.4.2004 to 29.4.2005 was 9089 units. In the month of July, 2005, he received bill dated 23.7.2005 for the period from 29.4.2005 to 29.6.2005 amounting to Rs.20,310/- showing electricity consumption as 4754 units, which were very excessive. He approached the opposite parties and also made a written request dated 2.8.2005 about this excessive billing and fast running of the meter. He was assured that the meter, in question, would be checked and if found defective the same would be replaced and the amount paid in excess would be refunded. Thereafter, in August, 2005, the employees of the opposite parties visited his residence and checked the meter in question and observed that the same was in fact defective and required replacement. At that time, the meter was found to be running fast and was recording consumption even after switching off all the lights, but it was not replaced for want of new meters. Ultimately the old meter was changed only on 9.4.2006 and was sent to ME Lab for checking, where it was found defective/running fast. After replacement of the meter, new meter was installed, which was working properly. In the complaint filed before the District Forum, he sought directions to the opposites parties to refund the amount of bills amounting to Rs.50,000/-, which were illegally recovered by them. Rs.20,000/- as damages on account of physical, mental and monitory harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from April, 2005 till its realisation were also demanded. First Appeal No. 515 of 2008 Page 3 of 11
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed written reply admitting that the bill during the month of August, 2005 was issued for 4754 units as recorded consumption of the meter. It was pleaded that the complainant submitted an application on 5.4.2006, alongwith affidavit, duly attested by the Executive Magistrate, stating that the meter was showing excess consumption and he challenged the same by depositing the meter challenge fee of Rs.450/- on 5.4.2006. The order to replace the meter was issued and the same was replaced on 12.4.2006. The removed meter was got tested from ME Lab, Ropar, vide report No.325 dated 26.4.2006 confirming that the meter was running fast/defective. It was pleaded that as per Regulation No.70.4.3, if the percentage error exceeds ± 20%, the meter is to be declared erratic and in such a case, the overhauling of the meter is subject to ± 20% error and compared with the consumption as worked out in case of a dead stop meter and the higher of the two is to be taken for overhauling. As per Section 71.2.3, the period of overhauling is not to exceed three months and average consumption for the last 4-6 months or average of the same months of previous year or actual recorded consumption, whichever is higher, is to be compared with the recorded consumption and the higher of the two figures is to be charged. The meter was challenged by the complainant on 5.4.2006 and refund was given for three months i.e. 01/2006, 02/2006 and 03/2006, from the date of challenge as per the said Regulation on the basis of average of the last six months i.e. 3144 units. As such, no amount was found refundable. However, Rs.450/- First Appeal No. 515 of 2008 Page 4 of 11 deposited by the complainant on account of meter challenge fee, was refunded in the bill for the month of 5/2006. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. The learned District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, dismissed the complaint.
6. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant has come up in appeal on the ground that the District Forum has not considered the application dated 2.8.2005 (Ex.C-2) submitted immediately after receiving the bill dated 23.7.2005 for getting the meter checked. In the report of the ME Lab dated 26.4.2006, the said faulty meter was confirmed to be running fast and despite this report the District Forum has incorrectly held that the complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The District Forum has wrongly counted the period for which the bills were issued in excess and even included the period, during which the meter itself was found running fast, for working out average for overhauling. The acceptance of the appeal, setting aside of the impugned order and allowing of the complaint was prayed.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on record.
8. The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant received a bill dated 23.7.2005 for the period from 29.4.2005 to 29.6.2005 amounting to Rs.20,310/- showing the electricity consumption of First Appeal No. 515 of 2008 Page 5 of 11 4754 units. According to the complainant, this consumption was very high as compared to his normal consumption. He submitted a representation on 2.8.2005 (Ex.C-2) informing that the meter was running fast and the same be got checked. Thereafter, the opposite parties further sent bills dated 24.9.2005, 22.11.2005, 21.1.2006, 21.3.2006 and 21.5.2006 which showed the consumption of 3817, 3079, 2448, 3153 and 3019 units. On the assurance of the opposite parties that defective meter would be replaced, he deposited these bills but they did not refund the excess payment received against these bills. The defective meter was replaced on 9.4.2006 only when the complainant offered a meter bought by him for replacement and deposited meter challenge fee on 5.4.2006, vide Ex.R-2. When the removed meter was sent to ME Lab it was found running fast. This report of the ME Lab is proved as Ex.R-8, a scrutiny of which shows that the meter was declared to be running fast beyond permissible limit of 20%, and therefore, was declared as defective. As per the version of the opposite parties, the account of the complainant was required to be overhauled and excess charged amount from the complainant was to be refunded as per Regulation 71.2, which provides as under:
"71.2.1 If any consumer doubts the accuracy of the meter/metering equipment installed at his premises, it may be changed if so requested by him. However, the meter shall be procured by the consumer himself and it shall be got First Appeal No. 515 of 2008 Page 6 of 11 tested/calibrated from the Board's laboratory after the payment of necessary charges. This will not entitle the consumer to any refund due to change in average consumption of the consumer. The consumer will be entitled for refund etc. only if he challenges his old meter and gets it tested in the ME Lab after depositing the challenge/testing fee. The accounts of the consumer will be revised only according to the test results of the ME Lab. 71.2.2 In case the consumer does not accept the readings of the check meter or insists in the very beginning to send the challenged meter to ME Laboratory, he should deposit the meter challenge fee. After the challenge fee is received, the meter should be sent to the ME Lab. promptly after removal but in no case it should be delayed beyond a period of fifteen days from the date of removal of the meter from the consumer's premises. While sending the challenged meters to the ME Lab this fact must be clearly indicated on the MCO and AE/AEE ME be requested for intimation of test results at the earliest. After the meter is received in the laboratory, it should be promptly tested and test results intimated to the AE/AEE/XEN(Ops.) concerned by ME Lab. within a maximum period First Appeal No. 515 of 2008 Page 7 of 11 of seven days from the date of receipt of the meter in the laboratory. The AE/AEE/XEN(Ops.) will then immediately intimate the result to the consumer and after getting his acceptance adjust the accounts accordingly. The whole process should, in no case, take more than a month. 71.2.3 The period, for which the refund is to be allowed, should be determined on the merits of each case. Normally, the period may not exceed three months. If, however, the circumstantial evidence or the variation in consumption warrants the adjustment for a longer period, the refund may be allowed up to a maximum period of six months."
The opposite parties inspite of the clear cut instructions to allow refund in case the meter is found running fast, declined the same on the ground that in case of defective meter, the account was to be overhauled on the basis of average consumption of 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months in the previous years or the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher and is to be compared with the consumption as under:-
" CONSUMPTION PER CYCLE
DS consumers NRS consumers
1. Up to 2 KW Load 100 Units/KW 100 Units/KW
2. Exceeding 2 KW and 200+60 units/KW 200+60 Units/KW
up to 5 KW of load in excess of load in excess of
of 2 KW 2 KW.
First Appeal No. 515 of 2008 Page 8 of 11
3. Load exceeding 5 KW 380+40 Units/KW 760+80 Units/KW of load in excess load in excess of of 5 KW 5 KW"
The opposite parties worked out an average consumption for overhauling the account that was even higher than the recorded consumption of meter which was declared running fast. Hence, no refund was given. This contention of the opposite parties is absolutely incorrect and against the spirit of Regulation 71.2 for allowing the refund in case the meter is found running fast. It is not disputed that the meter was declared as 'running fast' in the ME Lab report and the test results were found beyond limits of ± 20%, and therefore, it was declared erratic. In such cases, Regulation 70.4.3 is applicable which provides as under:-
"70.4.3 In case the %age error is up to ± 20%, the results should be applied straight away on the recorded consumption for overhauling of accounts. If the %age error exceeds ± 20% and the meter shall be declared erratic. For overhauling the accounts of the consumer, the monthly consumption recorded during the period of overhauling shall be subjected to ± 20% error factor and compared with the consumption as worked out in case of dead stop meters and higher of the two should be taken for the purpose of overhauling the accounts provided there has been no change in connected load during the period. If there is change in connected load First Appeal No. 515 of 2008 Page 9 of 11 during the period of overhauling, the chargeable consumption worked out shall be enhanced/reduced proportionately. The overhauling of account shall be carried out for a maximum period of 6 billing months preceding the billing month of detection of defect/error in the meter. If the month/date of meter getting defective/erratic can be established with certainly being within 6 preceding billing months, overhauling of consumption will be restricted up to that month/date."
9. Since the meter was running fast, overhauling was to be subjected to + 20% error factor and compared with the consumption as it worked out in case of a defective meter. But in the present case, the opposite parties only treated the meter as defective and compared the recorded consumption with average consumption as well as to the consumption as is worked out in connected load basis. The complainant has been even denied the benefit of refund available to him in the case of meter running fast upto + 20%. The approach of the opposite parties is highly erratic. It can only be applied if the meter is found slow beyond -20%. As per Regulation 70.4.3, if error exceeds ± 20% monthly consumption during the period of overhauling, it is subjected to ±20% error factor and then it is compared with average consumption applicable in case of defective meter. It implies that in case of meter running fast minimum refund First Appeal No. 515 of 2008 Page 10 of 11 of +20% error factor is invariably to be allowed and if the average is lower than that, additional refund is also allowed.
10. The refund is to be normally allowed for the period of 3 months prior to the date of detection of fault which can be extended to six months if the date of getting defective/erratic can be established. The opposite parties have themselves proved on record the representation by the complainant dated 5.4.2006 (Ex.R-2) when the meter challenge fee was deposited by the complainant. But the complainant intimated to the opposite parties on 2.8.2005, vide Ex.C-2 after the excessive bill dated 23.7.2008 was received by him. Thus, the refund is to be worked out from date of detection of fault i.e. from 2.8.2005 and for working out the average consumption, consumption recorded prior to this date is to be taken into account.
11. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal of the appellant/complainant is accepted and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. The opposite parties are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant from 2.8.2005 upto the date of replacement of the meter i.e. 9.4.2006 by allowing minimum refund @ + 20% (fast) on the recorded consumption and if average consumption so worked out is lower than the correct recorded consumption, additional refund may also be allowed. This refund be allowed within one month from the receipt of copy of the order. The amount of refund worked out, as directed above, should be allowed alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 25.9.2007 till its realisation. First Appeal No. 515 of 2008 Page 11 of 11
12. The arguments in the case were heard on 21.3.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) PRESIDING MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER March 24, 2014 VINAY