AJIT AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties not to demand Rs.72,699/- claimed vide letter No.149 dated 29.01.2018; and to pay Rs.50,000/- for harassment, litigation expenses etc.
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that electric connection bearing account No.Y64CD430040K was installed at the residence of complainant in the name of his father, meter of which was installed outside his house in the meter box and its keys were with the officials of opposite party. His father died on 15.05.2014 but connection is still in his name. Meter of complainant was changed in the year 2016 by the opposite parties but no signatures of complainant were taken at that time. Even no information was given to him about change of meter. Surprisingly, complainant received letter No.149 dated 29.01.2018 from the opposite party demanding Rs.72,699/- which is illegal. He has been paying all the bills regularly and nothing is due towards him. He requested opposite parties number of times to withdraw this demand but to no effect and finally refused to accept his requests. It is pleaded that complainant remains ill as he is suffering from heart problem and due this letter, he is facing harassment. C.C. No.31 of 2018 \\3// Hence, present complaint
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed joint written reply taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties; that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that on E-computer report, the meter of connection holder was changed and returned to M.E. Lab., Sri Muktsar Sahib vide challan No.182 dated 21.01.2017 through J.E. Jagdish Kumar of S/D Rupana and M.E. Lab. declared the meter burnt and F reading is 23459 while receiving the meter. The Audit Party vide half margin no.261 dated 08.09.2017 detected that in office record the reading of meter recorded as 13983 while reading 23459 was shown by M.E. Lab. So, difference of reading was liable to be charged from the consumer and amount of Rs.72,699/- was imposed by Audit Party; that notice dated 29.01.2018 for Rs.72,699/- was issued to the connection holder; and that complainant is not a consumer as connection is not in his name. On merits, same facts have been reiterated as mentioned in the preliminary objections and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Parties were granted sufficient opportunities to produce evidence C.C. No.31 of 2018 \\4// in order to prove their case.
5. Complainant Jaspal Singh tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, letter No.149 Ex.C-2, copy of statement of account Ex.C-3, copy of death certificate Ex.C-4, receipts Ex.C-5 & C-6, photocopies of, his aadhar Card Ex.C-7, bills Ex.C-8 to C-16, receipts Ex.C-17 to C-24, medical record Ex.C-25 to C-32 and closed his evidence.
6. Sh. K.S. Sammewali Advocate tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. S.K. Bansal, SDO, Sub Division, Rupana Ex.OP-1, attested copies of, notice Ex.OP-2, half margin dated 08.09.2017 Ex.OP-3, M.E. Challan Book Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the file.
8. The complainant has challenged letter No.149 dated 29.01.2018, vide which, demand of Rs.72,699/- has been raised against connection in question. The counsel for the opposite parties argued that on E-computer report, meter of the connection holder was changed and was sent to M.E. Lab. vide challan dated 21.01.2017. In checking, M.E. Lab. declared the meter burnt and reading was 23459 while receiving the same. The Audit party vide half margin dated 08.09.2017 detected that in office record, reading of meter C.C. No.31 of 2018 \\5// was recorded as 13983 whereas reading shown by the M.E. Lab. is 23459. So, the consumer has been charged for Rs.72,699/- through notice dated 29.01.2018 for difference of reading.
9. The opposite parties have neither alleged nor produced any evidence that the electric meter of the complainant was removed, packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant. There is no evidence on the record that the opposite parties ever issued any notice to the complainant regarding checking of his electric meter in the M.E. Lab. The opposite parties have badly failed to comply with the rules and regulations of the PSPCL regarding removing, packing and sealing the electric meter and thereafter its checking in the M.E. Lab. The opposite parties have straightway claimed the impugned demand through notice Ex.C-2, which is also against the provisions of the Regulations of the PSPCL. No opportunity of being heard was provided to the complainant by the opposite parties before raising the impugned demand.
10. As per regulations no.55. Replacement of Meters/Metering Equipment : 55.1 Single Phase Electromechanical Meters : E/M Meters removed from the consumer premises on replacement with the electronic meters shall be returned to M E Labs without any other formality and ME Labs will not carry out any checking/testing of these meters except in case of C.C. No.31 of 2018 \\6// disputed meters. In case of disputed meters removed under code G, M & R (glass broken, meter burnt & ME seals broken) and in cases where there is sufficient evidence of theft /tampering etc at the time of removal, the JE concerned shall record his observation on the MCO itself and such meters shall be packed and sealed in the presence of consumers for further checking in M E Labs in his presence.
11. Further as per regulation no. 21.4 (d) : In case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the Licensees laboratory, the consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing atleast seven days in advance. The signature of the consumer, or his authorized representative, if present would be obtained on the Test Result Sheet and a copy thereof supplied to consumer.
12. He further argued that moreover, as per their own regulations, opposite parties cannot charge the dues relating to previous period without issuing a separate bill giving complete detail of the charges levied. Copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied should also be supplied to consumer but in the present case, no separate bill or notice giving complete detail of the amount charged or period of the amount ever served upon the complainant. So, as per their own regulations and instructions, C.C. No.31 of 2018 \\7// opposite parties cannot demand this amount and cannot add this amount in current bill. The Ld. Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity supply Instruction Manual of opposite parties where regulation no. 93 is regarding payment of arrears not originally billed. Relevant regulation is reproduced hereunder: 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 connection of the meter and unauthorized use of electricity etc. In such cases, the copy of relevant instructions under C.C. No.31 of 2018 \\8// 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. 93.2 Limitation: Under Section 56(2) of the Act, no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two year from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied.
13. The complainant further put reliance on citation 2016 (2) Consumer Law Today 429 titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Others Vs Dinesh Sharma, wherein it is held that Electricity-Sundry charges cannot be charged without show cause notice to complainant. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-electricity-Sundry charges added in electricity bill of complainant-Held-NO show cause notice issued to the complainant before imposing penalty-OPs 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 the basis of which the demand is C.C. No.31 of 2018 \\9// made, which is not in the present case. Para 7-The appellants have failed to show any notice issued to the complainant before imposing the penalty. Our Honble High Court has also opined in Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is required before imposing the penalty and an order about person who was likely to be affected thereby. In the present case, the appellants OPs have miserably failed to show that previous reading of defective meter was correct. 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 the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case.
14. Therefore, from the above discussion, we are fully convinced with the arguments and case law produced by complainant and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Opposite parties are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.72,699/- raised by them vide letter No.149 dated 29.01.2018. The opposite parties are also directed to adjust the amount deposited by the complainant out of the demand in question, if any, on the directions of this Forum in his future bills. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the C.C. No.31 of 2018 \\10// Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room. Dated: 22-10-2018. (Ajit Aggarwal) President (Mandeep Kaur) Member