State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board Through ... vs Markfed Branch Malout, Tehsil Malout ... on 23 August, 2011
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1619 of 2006
Date of institution : 29.12.2006
Date of Decision : 23.8.2011
Punjab State Electricity Board through the Senior Executive Engineer (Operation)
Division Malout District Muktsar.
....Appellant.
Versus
Markfed Branch Malout, Tehsil Malout District Muktsar through Sh. Tirath Ram,
Manager, Markfed Branch Office Malout Tehsil Malout District Muktsar.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 23.11.2006
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Muktsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for
Sh. R.L. Sharma, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate
PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the appellant-PSEB(hereinafter called 'the appellant') against the order dated 23.11.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar(hereinafter called the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the respondent/Markfed (hereinafter called the 'respondent') was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that electric connection No. ML- 26/0335 K was installed in the godown of the respondent at Malout under NRS category. It was pleaded by the respondent that all the bills were regularly paid by it but inspite of that the appellant had sent a supplementary bill dated nill payable upto 11.2.2004 of Rs. 1,61,217/-. The respondent pleaded that in the bill dated 20.3.2000 old reading was shown First Appeal No. 1619 of 2006 2 as 16429 units and new reading was shown as 16510 units. But thereafter in the bill dated 22.5.2000 meter was shown as burnt. Old meter No. 1045563 was replaced and new meter No. 332142 was installed. From 22.7.2000 to 30.11.2002 some bills were sent on average basis and some bills were sent on the basis of connected load. In the bill dated 29.9.2001, the meter was shown as dead and the same status continues upto the bill dated 30.11.2002. In the bill dated 31.1.2003, meter number was shown as 214372 and the same was issued as per connected load. It was pleaded by the respondent that till date meter No. 332142 had been working in the godown. The bills were sent to the respondent since 22.5.2010 on average basis or on the basis of connected load but as per rules and regulations of the Board, the appellant could not charge the bills on the basis of average or connected load for more than six months. The actual consumption of the respondent was very low as only two or three lights and one fan was installed in the godown and the respondent had also applied for reduction of load after depositing fee of Rs. 120/- vide receipt dated 18.10.2003. The respondent alleged that Meter Reader of the appellant never visited the premises to record the reading and had been wrongly shown the meter to be defective. On the basis of audit report, appellant had served notice dated 5.9.2003 vide which a demand of Rs. 1,11,157/- on average basis was raised to meet the audit objections. The respondent deposited the abovesaid amount under protest. The subsequent bill dated 11.2.2004 for Rs. 1,61,217/- was illegal and the same was also time barred. Complaint was filed on the ground that the appellant was deficient in service and prayed for setting aside the bill dated 11.2.2004 and also prayed for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on account of deficiency in service and harassment as well as Rs. 2,200/- as litigation expenses. First Appeal No. 1619 of 2006 3
3. Upon notice, the appellant replied by taking preliminary objections that the respondent was not a 'consumer' as the respondent was engaged in 'commercial activity' and the electric connection was used for that purpose, the respondent has not approached the District Forum with clean hands. It was pleaded that the Meter Reader Rajinderpal in connivance with the respondent and its employees recorded the status of the meter as defective in the bill dated 27.7.2000 and the same was recorded in all the billing months till his transfer in April, 2004. On the report of Rajinderpal, Meter Reader, opposite party No. 3(not impleaded as party in the appeal) issued MCO for change of the defective meter but the same was not executed. The advice of changing the meter was also sent to Computer Section of the appellant but Rajinderpal, Meter Reader knowingly recorded the fictitious old and new reading as 2 and 245, respectively in the bill dated 4.4.2003 though he had not recorded any reading. New Meter Reader Kulwinder Singh was deputed but he had failed to locate the connection of the respondent despite his best efforts and due to this reason he could not record the actual reading for billing dates 28.7.2003, 29.9.2003 and 28.11.2003. On locating the meter, Kulwinder Singh, Meter Reader recorded the reading as 63926 units for the billing month of January, 2004 payable on 11.2.2004 including the period of July, 2000 to November, 2003. The bills from July, 2000 to November, 2003 were issued by the appellant to the respondent on the basis of average or connected load. The bill was issued on the basis of actual consumption recorded by Kulwinder Singh, Meter Reader. It was prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, allowed the complaint by observing that bill Ex. C-30 was illegal, unjustified and time-barred and the First Appeal No. 1619 of 2006 4 same was prepared by the appellant without any rhyme or reason and the same was quashed with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1500/- as litigation expenses.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The present appeal is filed by the appellant on the grounds that the District Forum has erred in law that the arrear of charges of electric supply are not recoverable after a period of two years under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 1910. The Board is entitled to recover the arrears of bill of electricity under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910 for the actual consumption even if the demand has not been raised at all previously for consumption of supply.
8. It is the admitted case of both the parties that bill issued on 22.5.2000 on the basis of connected load and the status of the meter was shown as 'R' i.e. meter burnt and after that new meter No. 33142 was installed and old meter No. 1045563 was removed. After that the bills from 22.7.2000 to 30.11.2002 were sent on average basis and same were sent on the basis of connected load. The status of the meter issued on 29.9.2001 was shown as 'D' i.e. dead meter. In the bill dated 30.11.2002, the status of the meter was shown as same i.e. defective. The bill dated 30.1.2003 was also issued on the basis of connected load and Rs. 1038/- were added as sundry charges due to dead meter.
9. There is no dispute between the parties that the bills of consumption were issued by the appellant to the respondent from 22.7.2000 to January, 2004 on the basis of connected load and on average basis, which were paid by the respondent.
First Appeal No. 1619 of 2006 5
10. The bill in dispute Ex. C-30 was issued by the appellant to the respondent vide which a demand of Rs. 1,61,267/- was raised on the basis of actual consumption for the period of 27.7.2000 till the billing which was to be paid till April, 2004.
11. The version of the appellant for not sending the bills for the actual consumption for the period in dispute is that the meter, which was installed in the premises of the respondent could not be located and the same was located only in January, 2004. Due to this reason, the bills for the period in dispute were issued to the respondent on the basis of connected load as well as on average basis. It was the duty of the appellant if the meter was not located why the immediate action was not taken against the respondent. It is also not the case of the appellant that the Meter Reader had reported to the appellant that the meter which was installed in the premises of the respondent is not traceable.
12. The appellant has also not given any explanation on what basis the bills were issued to the respondent on average basis as well as on the basis of sanctioned load when the meter was not located/found at the spot.
13. It is also not denied by the appellant that the respondent had deposited Rs. 1038/- added as sundry charges in bill dated 31.1.2003 as price of the old meter. But no explanation has been given regarding not replacing the new meter by the appellant for such a long period. Appellant had also not given any clarification why explanation was not called regarding the dis-location of the meter. It is held by the Hon'ble Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in case "Assistant Engineer, R.S.E.B., Khetri & Anr. v. Ram Gujar", III (2006) CPJ 394 that it is quite clear that the appellants had not changed the meter First Appeal No. 1619 of 2006 6 for over 15 months and failed to explain satisfactorily the delay in changing the meter of the respondent and further observed as follows:-
"7. The appellants have contended that they had given the meter replacement order to the respondent for delivering the same to the Jr. Engineer concerned. This does not seem to be correct. There are signatures of receipt on this order in a legible handwriting whereas the respondent is an illiterate person and affixes thumb impression. As such it is clear that the meter changing order in question was not given to the respondent. The appellants have not led any evidence to show as to whom that order was delivered. Therefore, it is quite clear that the appellants had not changed the meter from 11.12.1995 to atleast up to 26.3.1997, i.e., for over 15 months. The appellants have failed to explain satisfactorily the delay of over 15 months in changing the meter of the respondent. This in itself is deficiency of service."
14. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the appellant was deficient in service for not replacing the old meter with the new meter inspite of depositing the price of new meter by the respondent, as such, the appellant is deficient in service.
15. Now only the question which we have to decide is whether the demand raised by the appellant vide bill Ex. C-30 is legal or not?
16. Regulation No. 124 of the Electricity Supply Regulation relates to the "payment of arrears not originally billed". Regulation No. 124.1 states that "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/Load or Demand Surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the Board 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 First Appeal No. 1619 of 2006 7 cases, separate bills should be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges should not be clubbed in the current bills of the consumer."
17. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case "M/s Swastic Industries Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board", (1997) 9 SCC 465 that there is no limitation for making demand by way of supplementary bills and there is no deficiency in serving in making supplementary demand for escaped billing.
18. So in view of the above proposition of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no limitation for raising the demand of actual consumption, which was not billed, as such, the respondent is liable to pay Rs. 1,41,563/-. However, the appellant will not be entitled for late payment charges or any penalty or interest for the late payment. The respondent is directed to make the payment of the above amount in five equal bio-monthly installments to the appellant after the receipt of the copy of the order.
19. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the order of the District Forum is illegal and against the regulations of the Board as well as law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted.
20. However, the appellant is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and the same be recovered from the salary/pension of the Meter Reader, who made the fictitious readings and not reported the matter to the appellant well within time.
21. The Commission be informed by the appellant regarding the action taken against the Meter Reader.
22. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 11.8.2011 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. First Appeal No. 1619 of 2006 8
23. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 1750/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs. 1750/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
24. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
25. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
August 23, 2011. (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member