Ludhiana, April 19
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum has directed the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) to pay Rs 2,000 as compensation for deficient services to Mr Tanvir Singh, a resident of Raina village. The forum has stated that as per the rules the PSEB is not entitled to charge the meter rent for the period during which the electricity meter installed on consumer’s premises remained dead. The forum has also directed the PSEB to pay Rs 500 as cost of litigation to the consumer.
According to the complaint, the consumer had been issued a bill on November 12, 1998, in which the old reading was 2212 and the new reading was 2234. The consumer stated before the forum that the consumption shown was 22 units, but the bill was issued for 190 units.
The consumer said he deposited the amount and thereafter the PSEB issued the bills in January, March, and May in which the old and new reading was shown as 2234. After that the board officials changed the meter in February, 2001, without his consent and a bill of Rs 3,114 was issued on March 21, 2000. When the consumer approached the board officials stating that the consumption was only 294 units and the amount charged was excess, he was told to deposit Rs 592 only.
The consumer disclosed that after settling the matter by paying the bill of Rs 592, the PSEB had raised a demand of Rs 12,542, alleging that the meter was defective for the period from November, 1998, to January, 2000. He further said when he protested against the said demand, no satisfactory reply was given by PSEB officials, rather he was told that in case the amount was not deposited, the connection will be disconnected. After that the consumer had to deposit the amount under the threat of disconnection.
The consumer alleged that the disputed demand was illegally raised and there was clear deficiency in services on the electricity board’s part. Moreover, the allegation made against him was against the provision of sales manual as the meter was the property of the respondent and it was the duty of the PSEB to keep the meter correct, he added. It was demanded from the forum that the demand should be quashed.
The PSEB pleaded that the demand by the consumer was related to the actual energy consumption for the period from September, 1998, to November, 2000, and it was not disputed demand. The respondent explained that the meter remained dead slow during the said period and the bills issued were not of actual consumption. It clarified that the account of the consumer was overhauled as per the rules and the demand of Rs 12, 542 was raised. It was stated that since the demand had been raised as per rules, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The forum observed that the respondent had raised the demand as per rules. The forum further observed that, however, in this case the meter remained dead for about one year and three months and as per rules, it had to be changed immediately after it became dead. The forum held that there was clear deficiency on the part of the PSEB for not changing meter for so long time.