Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/127

Shinderpal Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman cum MD PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

26 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                                  Complaint No :        127

     Date of Institution :  17.04.2017

                 Date of Decision :    26.09.2017

Shinderpal Kaur aged about 52 years, w/o Late Sukhjinder Singh r/o # 24 Green Avenue, Chahal Road, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

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

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                   Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

          Sh Rajneesh Garg, 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 Ops to set aside the demand of Rs.17,280/-raised vide bill dt 31.03.2017 and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. GA-95/0181 (old) and no. 3000397656 running in her premises in the name of her husband and after his death she is using the same and has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards consumption charges. It is contended that complainant received a bill issued in October, 2016 for Rs.2920/- for 449 units on average basis as meter of complainant was defective, which was duly paid by her. Meter of complainant was installed outside her premises and it was defective, OPs changed the same in her absence and she had no knowledge regarding change of her meter and she came to about this fact through bill dt 31.03.2017. it is further contended that bill dated 31.03.2017 is for Rs.17,280/- for 396 units for the period from 29.01.2017 to 31.03.2017 and in this bill Rs.14,574/-were added as arrears of previous period, which is very excessive. Complainant did not receive bill after October, 2016 and information regarding it was also given to OPs, but the bill issued on 31.03.2017 is very excessive and illegal. On receiving the same, complainant visited the office of OP-2 and requested them to correct the bill, but they flatly refused to correct the bill, rather threatened to disconnect the electric connection, if she fails to pay the entire amount, 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 she has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 18.04.2017, 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 wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that meter of complainant was defective and it was changed but denied the fact that complainant had no knowledge regarding change of her meter. It is averred that bill dt 29.11.2016 for the period from 3.10.2016 to 28.11.2016 was issued to complainant on average basis as meter status was ‘D’ meaning thereby the meter was defective. Meter of complainant was changed and after changing the defective meter, bill dt 29.01.2017 for 872 units was sent to complainant and in this bill 4600 units were charged for old meter reading i.e 19345-14745 = 4600 units. The amount of 4600 units was adjustable and a sum of Rs.32854 was adjusted in this bill, but complainant did not pay the bill for units consumed. This bill was for Rs.14,480/-. Bill dated 22.04.2017 was sent to complainant with ‘N’ code which means that reading not taken and it was sent on average basis for Rs.8848/- and amount of this bill was adjustable and was adjusted in next bill. Bill dt 4.06.2017 was issued to complainant for consumption of electricity and it also included the amount of previous bills which were not paid by complainant. This amount is still due towards complainant and OPs have every right to recover the same. All the amount is charged as per rules and regulations and it is denied that any amount has been charged illegally. 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 Chunish Jain as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-5 and 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 the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that amount of Rs.17,280/- raised by Ops vide bill dated 31.03.2017 is illegal and unlawful and nothing is due towards her. On the other hand Ops assert that they have charged amount as per rules and regulations and on the basis of difference of consumption units for which complainant has not paid the bill. They argued that the old meter of complainant was defective and replaced with new meter. As per OPs, bill dt 29.11.2016 for the period from 3.10.2016 to 28.11.2016 was issued on average basis as meter status was was defective and after changing the defective meter, bill dt 29.01.2017 for 872 units was sent to complainant and in this bill 4600 units were charged for old meter reading i.e 19345-14745 = 4600 units. The amount of 4600 units was adjustable and a sum of Rs.32854 was adjusted in this bill, but complainant did not pay the bill for units consumed. This bill was for Rs.14,480/-. Bill dated 22.04.2017 was sent to complainant with ‘N’ code which means that reading not taken and it was sent on average basis for Rs.8848/- and amount of this bill was adjustable and was adjusted in next bill. Bill dt 4.06.2017 was issued to complainant for consumption of electricity and it also included the amount of previous bills which were not paid by complainant and this amount is still due towards complainant and OPs have every right to recover the same.

9                                      Now, the version of the Ops is that the old meter of complainant was defective and they changed his meter with new one and after change of the meter, they issued bill dated 29.01.2017. copy of the same is Ex OP-3 which is for the period 5.02.2016 to 29.01.2017. in this bill they charged consumption of new meter as 872 units and 4600 units for old meter and this consumption of 4600 units of old meter was adjustable. As such, the amount of Rs.32,854/- for 4600 units was adjustable out of total current consumption charges of Rs.39,066/- and now bill for Rs.14,480/- was sent and in this bill OPs charged Rs.8264/-as arrears. Ld counsel for complainant argued that no amount of arrears is due towards complainant. OPs have themselves adjusted the amount already paid by complainant towards the old meter then how this amount of arrears is  charged by Ops without giving any detail of this amount. This amount is being continuously demanded by Ops in subsequent bills as arrears.

10                                      As per their  own regulations, OPs cannot 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 can not demand this amount and can not 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.

11                                   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.

 12                                          The Ld Counsel for complainant argued that without giving separate notice or bill giving detail of the amount charged, the OPs can not 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 as sundry charges.

13                                       Further as per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not 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  Rs.8,264/- charged by them as arrears in bill dt 29.01.2017 as alleged by them.

14                              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 overhaul the account of complainant and to withdraw the demand for amount of Rs.8264/-charged by them as arrears/sundry charges vide bill dated 29.01.2017 Ex OP-3. OPs are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.6,000/-already deposited by complainant with OPs in compliance of the order dt 18.04.2017 passed by this Forum 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 : 26.09.2017

                                                 Member                 President                                                                     (P Singla)               (Ajit Aggarwal)