Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/135

SURINDER KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

AEE PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

15 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        135

Date of Institution :  21.04.2017

Date of Decision :    15.09.2017

Surinder Kaur aged about 52 years, w/o Harbhajan Singh r/o Guru Nanak Colony, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                       

......complainant

Versus

1. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd , City Sub Division, Faridkot.                                    
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman cum Managing Director.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

   Sh M S Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to withdraw the demand of Rs.31,530/- and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that domestic supply electric connection of complainant bearing no.3000393980 is installed outside his premises and he has been paying all the bills and nothing is due towards him. It is further submitted that meter of complainant is installed outside his house and he has no approach to meter. For the last two years, the status of his meter is ‘M’ that means the seals of meter is broken and OPs have been issuing bills to complainant on average basis. In March, 2017, OPs issued a letter wherein they demanded Rs.12,000/-from complainant on allegation that his meter is found tampered and he has to pay this amount. On receiving the same, complainant approached Ops and requested them to withdraw the said amount as he has no approach to meter and he has never tampered with its seals and even meter of complainant has not been checked in his presence, but Ops did not pay any heed to his genuine requests and refused to do so and threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount and under compelling circumstances, complainant had to pay Rs.12,000/-to OPs on 28.03.2017. thereafter, OPs did not send him bill for April month and complainant downloaded the copy of same from internet and found that OPs illegally added Rs.31,530/-as sundry charges in the bill. Complainant approached OPs and made several requests to them to deduct sundry charges and get deposited actual current consumption charges, but they did accede to his requests, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to correct the said bill and prayed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                            Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 24.04.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                             On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that meter of complainant was checked in M E Lab, Moga and it was found that complainant indulged in theft of electricity and after admitting her fault, complainant deposited Rs.12,000/-with them. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted before the Forum that meter of complainant was installed outside her premises. It is averred that bills generated through Sap system were not correct and correct bill for the period from 7.06.2015 to 1.02.2017 was prepared for 604 days and in this bill rebate for already deposited amount was given and after adjusting the earlier deposited amount, amount due towards complainant was Rs.36,470/-. It is further averred that meter of complainant was changed on 8.10.2016 and new meter was installed. The old meter had reading of 24962 units. Bill for the period from 1.02.2017 to 5.04.2017 was for 559 units for Rs.35,870/-. Old meter of complainant was checked in ME Lab and during checking, it was found that complainant indulged in theft of electricity as body of meter was found tampered and its sealing clamp was cut. Its CT wire was also found cut and internal circle was tampered. After checking meter was seal packed and handed over to Malkit Singh AJE and checking report alongwith notice no.108 dt 31.01.2017 was sent to complainant and when complainant visited the office of answering OPs, full record was shown to her and after admitting her fault, she deposited Rs.12,000/-with them voluntarily to save herself from criminal liability. It is further averred that this amount is charges as per rules and regulations and complainant is liable to pay the same. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                                  Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 5 and closed the same.

6                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Santokh Singh as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to OP-7 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                                       From going through the pleadings of complainant as well as OPs and through the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that her meter is installed outside her premises and she has no approach to meter. For the last two years, the status of his meter is ‘M’ that means the seals of meter is broken and OPs were issuing bills to complainant on average basis, but in March, 2017, OPs issued a letter wherein they demanded Rs.12,000/-from complainant on allegation that his meter is found tampered. Under compelling circumstances, she deposited Rs.12,000/-with them and then, in April, 2017 OPs did not send her bill and when she downloaded the copy of bill from internet, she was shocked to see that Ops have illegally and unlawfully added Rs.31,530/-as sundry charges without giving her any detail or prior notice for that demand. She immediately approached and requested OPs to correct the said bill, but OPs did not pay any heed to her request and refused to admit her genuine request, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, Ops have admitted that bill in question is issued by them and meter of complainant was installed outside her premises. Ops stressed mainly on the point that complainant indulged in theft of electricity as old removed meter of complainant was checked in ME Lab and during checking, it was found that body of meter was tampered and its sealing clamp was cut. CT wire of meter was also found cut and internal circle was tampered. Checking report alongwith notice no.108 dt 31.01.2017 was sent to complainant and when complainant visited the office of answering OPs, full record was shown to her and after admitting her fault, complainant deposited Rs.12,000/-with them. It is further averred that bills generated through Sap system were not correct and correct bill for the period from 7.06.2015 to 1.02.2017 was prepared for 604 days and in this bill rebate for already deposited amount was given and after adjusting the earlier deposited amount, amount due towards complainant was Rs.36,470/- and complainant is liable to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9                                          Ld Counsel for complainant argued that as per regulations of PSPCL, OPs can not charges the dues relating to previous period or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment etc or pointed out by Internal Audit or Authorised Officer 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 issued to the complainant. So, as per their own regulations and instructions, OPs cannot demand this amount and cannot add this as sundry charges in current bill. The Ld Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity supply Instruction Manual of OPs where regulation no. 93 is regarding payment of arrears not originally billed. Relevant regulations 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 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.

10                                                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 can not 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 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 Hon’ble 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 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 made, which is not in the present case.

11                                           The Ld Counsel for complainant argued that without giving separate notice or bill clearly giving detail of the amount charged, the OPs cannot claim this amount from complainant and in the present case, the OPs did not issue any prior notice or bill for the amount charged by them in the bill for April, 2017 as sundry charges.

12                                         As per their own regulations and instructions, OPs cannot charge any amount of previous dues or arrears without giving any supplementary bill or notice giving complete detail of charges and also giving copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied. They can not demand the arrear in the current bill as sundry charges and in the present case, the OPs have failed to produce any  evidence or document which proves that they issued any supplementary bill or notice giving complete and full detail of the amount charged by them as arrears of consumption as alleged by them.

13                                Therefore, from the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Ops have not followed the proper procedure to recover the arrear as alleged by them as per their own regulations, which amounts to deficiency in service. We are fully convinced with the arguments and case law produced by complainant and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to withdraw the demand for amount of Rs.31,530/-charged by them as sundry charges vide bill dt 5.04.2017. Ops are also directed to adjust the amount of Rs.10,000/-already deposited by complainant with them in compliance of order passed by this Forum on 24.04.2017 in subsequent 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 Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 15.09.2017

                                                 Member                 President                                                                     (P Singla)               (Ajit Aggarwal)