Ludhiana, May 16
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for deficient services, along with Rs 500 as cost of litigation to Mr Bhupinder Singh, proprietor of Pathankot Timber Store, Samrala Road. The forum has also quashed the demand of Rs 55,736 raised by the PSEB from the consumer. Besides it has directed the PSEB to refund the amount deposited against the said demand along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of deposit till actual payment.
According to the complainant, the PSEB had raised demand of Rs 55,736 from the consumer through a memo issued on July 5, 2001. The consumer stated before the forum that as per the inquiry register no 672, November 27, 1999, the meter was checked and it should be sent to the ME Laboratory.
The consumer disclosed that as per registered information the meter was checked by ERS system and it was found running slow by 13.15 per cent. He pointed out that why the meter was not removed on November 27, 1999, when it was found defective and the matter should have been referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector.
The consumer alleged that the demand had been raised against rules. He said that if the meter had been checked in ME Laboratory, it should have been checked in his or his representative’s presence which was mandatory also, he added.
The consumer stated that if the meter was running slow, it was the duty of the respondent to change the meter immediately and to refer the matter to the Chief Electrical Inspector. He further stated that the disputed demand had been illegally raised and same should be liable to be quashed.
The PSEB pleaded that the electricity connection was checked on November 27, 1999 by the Additional SE (Enforcement) and it was found that it was running slow by 13.15 per cent. The respondent stated that the account was overhauled for the period from May, 1999 to October, 1999 in view of the said checking. Thereafter the meter became defective and started recording less consumption of energy as a result, during the period from November, 2000 to April, 2001, no consumption of energy was recorded by the meter, it added.
The respondent explained that the meter was checked by the Additional SE (Enforcement) and it was found that the disc of the meter was rotating reverse on no load which meant that the meter was not recording energy. After that the account of the consumer was again overhauled, it added.
The board clarified that there was no deficiency on its part and the demand had been rightly raised. The respondent prayed before the forum for dismissal of the complaint.
The forum observed that the meter was checked on November 27, 1999 and it was found defective and recording less consumption of energy, but it was removed after a period one year and four months. The forum further observed that there was no ME Laboratory report to prove that the meter was checked in the laboratory. Moreover, no evidence was there that when the meter was removed and it was duly packed or sealed.
The forum stated that if the meter was defective, the matter should have been referred to the Chief Electrical Inspector (CEI). The forum further stated that the demand had been raised only for six months and that also after reference of the matter to the CEI.
The held that there was clear deficiency on the part of the PSEB for not changing the defective meter even after a period of one year and four months. The forum further stated that the demand had been raised against the rules and liable to be quashed.