AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the order dated 05.11.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 225/2020 in which order dated 12.12.2019 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 327 of 2017 was challenged, inter alia praying for revising, quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.11.2020 of State Commission and restoring and upholding order dated 12.12.2019 of the District Forum.
While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Petitioner/Complainant) was Respondent and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as Respondents/OPs) were Appellants in the said FA/225/2020 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondents were Opposite Parties (OPs) before the District Commission in the CC No.327 of 2017. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 18.02.2021. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 22.08.2022 and 24.03.2023 respectively.
Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that the Petitioner/complainant earlier got temporary electric connection from the Respondent/OP for construction of hospital building to earn livelihood by self-employment. The temporary connection was disconnected on 26.07.2017. Thereafter the complainant applied for a regular connection of 125 KW and the same was installed in the month of May 2017 with meter being installed in the box outside the building. An inspection was done by the officials of OP on 05.10.2017, who concluded that the consumption shown in the meter was very less as compared to the sanctioned load, hence, opened MCB and meter after breaking terminal seals, removed the meter after few days and on getting it tested found that it was running slow by 90.44%, and accordingly an additional amount of Rs.5,12,896/- was found recoverable. The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum which was allowed in his favour. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP filed an Appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed in their favour. Hence, the complainant is before this Commission in the Revision Petition.
Vide Order dated 12.12.2019, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/- and demand of Rs.5,12,896/- raised by OPs vide letter dated 06.11.2017 was set aside and it was ordered that the complainant shall be entitled to refund/adjustment in his future bills. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 12.12.2019 of District Forum, Respondents appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 05.11.2020 in FA No. 225/2020 allowed the Appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum, dismissing the complaint of the complainant.
Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 05.11.2020 of the State Commission inter alia on following grounds:
(i) the Petitioner was never intimated about the testing of the meter in the ME Lab of the Respondents and thus the testing on 31.10.2017 is not as per prescribed procedure.
(ii) The Petitioner has applied for and has been using the electricity connection for his self-employment and to earn his livelihood.
(iii) Signatures of father of the complainant/petitioner were obtained on a printed proforma/register only for preparing a report.
(iv) The seals of the meter were found intact. There was no fault of the petitioner and there was no fault in the meter/or connection of wires.
(v) Testing was done and the demand was raised in violation of the Regulations and Rules of the respondents, the meter was to be tested with HT Testing Set and the meter could not be removed from the site or taken to the laboratory.
(vi) Respondents had themselves broken the seals and carried the meter and kept it in their custody for 90 days and prepared false, baseless and pre-conceived report at the back of the petitioner and without any notice to him.
(vii) At the time of inspection the hospital was newly opened and the equipment were recently installed and the consumption was therefore less as compared to the load.
(viii) Application dated 17.10.2017 of the petitioner did not amount to any estoppel against him as he never said that the checking may be done in his absence.
(ix) District Forum had given detailed reasons for its judgment in favour of the petitioner. The District Forum noted that as the Respondents themselves stated that the meter was running slow by 90.44% on 14.10.2017 as per the report of that day HT Testing Set was not available and DIAL test also could not be performed and thus the report dated 14.10.2017 could not be said to be a correct report. After the incorrect report dated 14.10.2017, the test in the ME Lab was conducted on 31.10.2017 but there is no evidence that meter was received on 24.10.2017 by the Lab in proper packaging and properly sealed in the presence of the petitioner or his representative.
(x) The District Forum relied upon Regulation 21.3.6 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations, 2014 and concluded that the petitioner had a right to be present at the time of testing of meter but set testing done in ME Lab on 31.10.2017 was done without intimating the petitioner.
(xi) The Lab result dated 31.10.2017 was an outcome of pre-determined mind as the same result was sought to be projected on 14.10.2017 without appropriate checking as per Rules.
(xii) The State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, and has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, and has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. The foundational error and illegality while exercising appeal jurisdiction by the State Commission in this matter lies in not even dealing with the reasoning given by the District Forum and substituting its own findings, that too findings which are not corroborated from facts or the law or the Rules and Regulations.
Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
It is admitted by the Respondents that the meter in question was supplied, installed and sealed by the officials of Respondent Corporation and at the time of inspection the seals were found intact. It is not Respondents' case that the Petitioner herein has either tampered with the meter or with its installation or with the seals. Moreover, the said meter is installed outside the premises of the Petitioner. Even going by the Respondents version for argument's sake that the meter was running slow by 90.44% and the same has been established by two test reports, Respondents have not been able to satisfactorily explain as to how the Petitioner is responsible and/or answerable for installing a defective meter or for wrongful installation. Even if assuming that the meter was defective and running slow, the entire responsibility for the same rests with the Respondents as at no stage of installation, the Petitioner has any role and the seals have not been tampered with even by Respondents own case. Further, the Respondents could have placed on record bills for subsequent periods to show that the meter in question was running slow by 90.44% during the period May, 2017 to October, 2017.
The Petitioner on the other hand stated that for the period in question, i.e. May, 2017, (when the regular meter connection was installed) till 05.10.2017, (when the inspection held) on an average, the monthly bill for this period was in the range of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/-. However, the Petitioner has also not placed on record bills for any subsequent periods, which could show that even after installation of new meter, the bills have not shown any substantial jump. The Petitioner stated that the report of the Respondents' agency is also not conclusive as they did not do the HT test and the same is recorded in the report itself. The Petitioner also referred to the contents of second report. It was argued by the Counsel for the Petitioner that the only reason for the Respondents officials to suspect low meter reading was that consumption was less according to the sanctioned load. According to him, it was a newly set up hospital and hence in the initial stages the actual consumption could be less than the load, which was 125 KV.
We have gone through the rival contentions of the parties and all relevant case records and are of the view that State Commission went wrong in setting aside a well-reasoned order of the District Forum. We agree with the findings of the District Forum. Even if assuming that the meter was defective and running slow, the entire responsibility for the same rests with the Respondents as at no stage of installation, the Petitioner has any role and the seals have not been tampered with even by Respondents own case.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, the RP is allowed, order of the State Commission is set aside and order dated 12.12.2019 of the District Forum is restored.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.