Punjab

Tarn Taran

CC/120/2019

Gurpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.S.P.C.L. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

22 Jul 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,ROOM NO. 208
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX TARN TARAN
 
Complaint Case No. CC/120/2019
( Date of Filing : 10 Dec 2019 )
 
1. Gurpal Singh
Gurpal Singh aged 74 years s/o Shri Chanan Singh, r/o Village Lauhka, Tehsil Patti,District Tarn Taran
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. P.S.P.C.L.
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala through its Managing Director
2. Executive Engineer
Executive Engineer,Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division Patti, District Tarn Taran
3. SDO
Sub Divisional Officer SDO Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Kairon,Tehsil Patti,District Tarn Taran
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Sh.Charanjit Singh PRESIDENT
  Sh.Jatinder Singh Pannu MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
For the complainant Sh. Punjab Singh representative of complainant.
......for the Complainant
 
For the Opposite party Sh. Sanjay Gupta Advocate proxy counsel.
......for the Opp. Party
Dated : 22 Jul 2021
Final Order / Judgement

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

 

Consumer Complaint No   :       120 of 2019

Date of Institution   :       10.12.2019

Date of Decision     :        22.07.2021

Gurpal Singh aged 74 years son of Sh. Chanan Singh resident of village Lahuka, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.

                                                                                      …..Complainant

Versus

  1. Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala through its Managing Director,
  2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited Division Patti, District Tarn Taran,
  3. Sub divisional Officer (SDO) Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited, Sub Division Kairon, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran.

                                                                             …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section  12 and 13  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Sh. Jatinder Singh Pannu Member

For Complainant           Sh. Punjab Singh representative of complainant.

For Opposite Parties     Sh. K.M. Gupta Advocate

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties on the allegations that an electric meter bearing No. 4727277, account No. T41LR120817N is installed in the residential house of the complainant and the complainant has been using the above said electric connection since a long time in his above said residential house and the complainant is paying all the electricity bills of the above said electric meter to the opposite parties regularly. Hence, the complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. Previously, the bill for the above said connection of residential house was continuously sent to the complainant by the opposite parties in between Rs. 700/- to Rs. 2000/- and complainant made the bill amount of Rs. 1000/- vide receipt dated 24.11.2016, Rs. 450/- vide receipt dated 2.2.2017, Rs. 740/- vide receipt dated 26.7.2017, Rs. 1140/- vid receipt dated 7.8.2019 and Rs. 920/- vide receipt dated 7.4.2019 and the complainant has paid all the bills to the opposite parties. The electric bill bearing No. 02282018165065 dated 16th November 2018 clearly shows the status as ‘O’ i.e. Okay, but in the electric bill bearing No. 023020191960121 dated 19th January 2019 the opposite party No. 3 has given remarks in the said bill as code ‘F’ i.e. another meter which is illegal, null and void , against law and against facts. On 27.11.2019, the opposite party No. 3 has issued one Bill No. 023020192750223 amounting to Rs. 34,040/- which is illegal, null and void, against law, against facts, time barred, without any prior notice with complete details and intimation to the complainant and the same is against the standing instructions of Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited and the same is liable to be set aside/ cancelled and in the said Bill Sundry Charges has been shown as Rs. 31,580/- which is against law, against facts which is allegedly from the month of January 2019 and the complainant is not liable to pay any amount of alleged sundry charges without disclosing any complete detail to the opposite party. The opposite parties cannot recover any alleged dues/ balance amount from the complainant without any due information and prior notice and hence, the alleged bill issued by the opposite party No. 3 is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside/ cancelled and rejected. The opposite parties have not given any detail of amount to the complainant before adding the amount of Rs. 31,580/- as Sundry charges in the bill in question. On 29.11.2019 the complainant had approached to the office of opposite party No. 3 for inquiring about the alleged Sundry Charges and the opposite party No. 3 had stated to the complainant that your electric bill shows ‘F’ code i.e. another meter. However, the alleged bill bearing NO. 023020192750223 dated 27.11.2019 shows the same electric meter No. 4727277 which was installed in the residential house of the complainant since long, but for the about 4 years back the electric meter is installed outside the residential premises of the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite parties many a times and requested the opposite parties to correct the alleged bill and not to recover any alleged amount of Sundry charges but the opposite party has finally refused to accept the request of the complainant.  the complainant has suffered mental harassment and mental agony and the complainant has suffered a huge loss.  There is negligence in the service of the opposite party. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to

  1. Withdraw the Bill No. 023020192750223 dated 27.11.2019 amounting to Rs. 37,040/- raised on the complainant by the opposite party without any right, title or interest to claim the said amount illegally.
  2. Damages to the tune of Rs. 50000/- be also awarded in favour of complainant and against the opposite party
  3. Rs. 20000/- as litigation expenses be also awarded in favour of complainant

Alongwith the main complaint, the complainant has placed on record his self attested copy of affidavit Ex. C-1, Original Bill dated 27.11.2019 Ex. C-2, Original receipt dated 24.11.2016 Ex. C-3, Original receipt dated 2.2.2017 Ex. C-4, Original receipt dated 26.7.2017 Ex. C-5, Original receipt dated 7.8.2019 Ex. C-6, Original Bill dated 16.11.2018 Ex. C-7, Original Bill dated 19.1.2019 Ex. C-8, Self attested copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-9.

2        After formal admission of the complaint, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by alleging that the complainant is consumer of domestic connection. The status of the meter for January, 2019 as mentioned is as per position existing at the spot.  As per Regulation 35 of Supply Code, 2014, it is incumbent on the consumer to make full payment of the bill even if it is a disputed bill and in case of nonpayment action can be initiated against him as a case for nonpayment and thereafter, on receipt of complaint from the consumer the matter is to be decided and if on examination of complaint the bill is found to be erroneous then a revised bill is to be issued with a revised due date of payment. The complainant has not complied with the rules and regulations as applicable and under the circumstances, the present complaint is not maintainable.  The consumption bill issued to the complainant for a period when the meter installed was found to be of ‘F’ Code i.e. meter having been not registered in the computer data. The bill was to be sent on average basis but was sent otherwise, therefore, the consumer account was overhauled during enquiry by the accounts officer and the consumption was assessed on average basis and after deducting the amount already paid the amount of Rs.31,580/- was added in the current consumption bill. He had not given any application nor he made payment of the bill. For the reasons explained, the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint. The opposite parties have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of SDO Kairon Ex. OP1, Copy of report dated 30.9.2019 from Assistant Accounts Officer Ex. OP2, Copy of Regulation 35 of Supply Code, 2014 Ex. OP3.

3        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and also carefully gone through the record.

4        In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant is domestic account holder of the opposite parties and he is consumer of the opposite parties. It is the case of the complainant that he is receiving the bill in between 700 to 2000 and in support of this version, the complainant has placed on record, receipt Ex. C-3 dated 24.11.2016 which is for an amount of Rs. 1000/-,  receipt Ex. C-4 dated 2.2.2017 for an amount of Rs. 450/-, receipt Ex. C-5 dated 26.7.2017 for an amount of Rs. 740/-, receipt Ex. C-6 dated 7.8.2019 for an amount of Rs. 920/- and the above said receipts support the version of the complainant that he is receiving the bill in between Rs. 700/- to Rs. 2000/-.  On the other hands, the opposite party has given reply of these pleadings as matter of record.  It is contended by Ld. counsel for the opposite party is that the status of the meter for January, 2019 as mentioned is as per position existing at the spot.  As per Regulation 35 of Supply Code, 2014, it is incumbent on the consumer to make full payment of the bill even if it is a disputed bill and in case of nonpayment action can be initiated against him as a case for nonpayment and thereafter, on receipt of complaint from the consumer the matter is to be decided and if on examination of complaint the bill is found to be erroneous then a revised bill is to be issued with a revised due date of payment.  It is also contended by the Ld. counsel for the opposite party that the consumption bill issued to the complainant for a period when the meter installed was found to be of ‘F’ Code i.e. meter having been not registered in the computer data. The bill was to be sent on average basis but was sent otherwise, therefore, the consumer account was overhauled during enquiry by the accounts officer and the consumption was assessed on average basis and after deducting the amount already paid the amount of Rs.31,580/- was added in the current consumption bill. To support their version the opposite parties have placed on record copy of report dated 30.9.2019 from Assistant Accounts Officer, Ex. OP-2, copy of regulation 35 of supply Code, 2014 Ex. OP-3. But the case of the complainant is that before adding the amount of Rs. 31,580/- in Bill Ex. C-2 dated 27.11.2019, the opposite party has not given prior detailed notice to the complainant. The opposite party is bound to serve notice before adding amount of arrears/sundry charges in the current consumption bill of the consumer. But in this case the opposite party has not served any notice before adding this amount in the current consumption bill of the complainant Ex.C-2 nor the opposite party called any objection from the complainant nor gave any opportunity of being heard before adding the amount in sundry charges in the current consumption bill of the complainant Ex. C-2. So there is violation of provisions of rules and regulations framed by the opposite party itself as opposite party cannot charge the arrears/sundry charges without issuing separate detailed notice as per  regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the opposite party. It has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case PSEB Vs. Hardeep Singh 2010(2)CLT 259 that where the payment of Rs. 27501/- was not raised by the  appellant  through  a separate detailed notice as required by regulation 124.1 and added in the bill in dispute as sundry charges, there is violation of the regulation of the opposite party. However, the appellant is at liberty to raise fresh demand of the amount in dispute and can charge the same from the complainant by following proper procedure. 

5        In view of above discussion, there is merit in the present complaint and the same is accepted and the bill dated 27.11.2019 Ex. C-2 is set aside/ quashed. The opposite parties are at liberty to recover the amount of disputed period on average basis after recording the consumption of 6 proceeding months.  The complainant is also entitled to Rs.4,000/- ( Rs. Four Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 3,500/-( Rs. Three Thousand and Five hundred only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

22.07.2021                                                

 
 
[ Sh.Charanjit Singh]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Sh.Jatinder Singh Pannu]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.