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

Consumer Complaint No  :  88 of 2018

Date of Institution               : 13.08.2018

Date of Decision                : 23.12.2019

Jarmanjit Singh  aged about 43 years son of Mehtab Singh R/o Amandeep Avenue near Bus Stand Tarn Taran Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.

                                                                                      ......Complainant

                                                Versus

1        The S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Focal Point Sub Division, Tarn Taran Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.

2        The Superintendent Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Urban Division Tarn Taran.

3        The XEN, Sub-Urban Division Office Punjab State Power Electricity Power Corporation Ltd., Tarn Taran District Tarn Taran.

4        The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall Patiala through Sub Division, Tarn Taran Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.

                                                                             .....Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:                Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member

For Complainant                       Sh. G.S. Sandhu Advocate

For Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3          Sh. K.M. Gupta Advocate

For OP No. 4                           Ex Parte.

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant Jarmanjit Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the allegations that he is a consumer of domestic Electric Connection No.3001011189  old connection No.T63FP321357A and meter No.1660252 fixed at his residence and complainant has been paying the electric bill/ charges regularly and has never been declared as defaulter. Originally the meter was in the name of Balwant Singh son of Gurnam Singh resident of Focal Point Tarn Taran. The complainant was paying the rent/ bill of the consumption of electricity as per bill and last bill 8^th May, 2018 bearing bill No.1049718E081217081 is Rs.2,370/- and the same was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties. The enforcement staff of PSPC Ltd. alleged to have checked the above said disputed connection on 28.04.2018 and as per the checking report dated 28.04.2018 the concerned official wrongly written that as per serial No.21 account No.FP32/1357 meter reading is 24270 and as per challan the reading has been mentioned 12126 as such, the above said official has wrongly calculated Unit 12144 and wrongly written type of industry 1-1 unpacked meter and sent  bill of Rs.1,16,180/- which is wrong and very excessive and beyond any reason. The alleged checking was done in the absence of the complainant and enforcement staff wrongly written that report as per Challan No.116 and wrongly sent the bill of Rs.1,16,180/-. The alleged bill dated 25.07.2018 is very much excessive as the complainant has not consumed the said electricity energy and wrongly sent the said bill without any right or title. The complainant made representation orally to the opposite parties and also opposite party No. 1 S.D.O., P.S.P.C. Ltd. Tarn Taran and as per his order, that the lenient view taken against the complainant and never imposed the above said charges but the opposite parties nothing to do in this matter. The complainant paid the bill regularly as per consumption of the electricity and now ready to pay the bill as earlier. The checking has been made in contradiction and in violation of section 54.7 of the electricity supply manual as such the alleged report is vitiated in law. The meter was neither sealed nor was packed as per the above said instruction. The demand order is highly illegal and unlawful as the complainant has not committed any theft of electricity and is not liable to pay Rs.1,16,180/-. The opposite party No.1 on written representation of the complainant has referred the matter to Administrator Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. to submit his report in respect of the alleged checking report vide challan No.116. As per the earlier bill issued to the complainant the meter status was found to be  (O) and no adverse report was submitted by the meter inspector which also falsify the claim of the opposite parties. Electricity is fundamental right (need) of the complainant. In the light of facts mentioned above a prima facie case is made out against the opposite parties. The above mentioned facts on the part of opposite parties clearly shows negligence and deficiency in the services provided on the part of opposite parties and these acts have caused great physical and mental pain, agony harassment and inconvenience to the complainant as well as harassment to his family in the society. The complainant has prayed as follows:-

1. That the provisional order of the checking report challan No.116 dated 28.04.2018 for demand of Rs.1,16,180/- with subsequent proceeding be quashed.
2. That the respondents  be directed to pay an amount of Rs,.20,000/- to the complainant by way of damaged and compensation
3. That the respondents be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- by way of costs  to the complaint.

Alongwith the present complaint, the complainant has placed on record documents i.e. self attested copy of Challan No. 116 Ex. C-1, self attested copy of Bill dated 18.7.2018 Ex. C-2, self attested copy of Bill dated 10.7.2018 Ex. C-3, self attested copy of Bill dated 8.5.2018 Ex. C-4, self attested copy of Bill dated 11.3.2018 Ex. C-5, self attested copy of Bill dated 12.1.2018 Ex. C-6, self attested copy of Notice dated 7.8.2018 Ex.   C-7.

2        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is no official called Chairman PSPCL, the present complaint has intentionally been filed against non-existent person in order to cause mis-representation. There is no agreement in between the complainant and PSPCL for supply of energy to the complainant through the domestic connection in dispute. The complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint, the complainant is not the consumer of the electric connection bearing number as mentioned. Rather, Balwant Singh son of Gurnam Singh is the consumer as per existing record of the opposite parties and the complainant is neither the consumer nor has got any locus standi to file present complaint as there is no relationship of supplier and consumer of electricity in between the complainant and the opposite parties.  No payment of any consumption of bill charges has been made by the complainant in his name. Whatever amount is paid and receipts are issued for the payment in the name of Balwant Singh. The complainant be put to strict documentary proof of having made any consumption charges payment through official receipts of PSPCL which might have been issued in his name.  The electricity consumption meter was reported to be burnt and was removed from the spot of its installation with consumption reading standing and showing at 12126 units. Whereas, the actual recorded consumption was found to be 24270 units during laboratory check in meter testing laboratory of PSPCL at Verka (Amritsar) in this way there is a difference of 12144 units which were short billed and as per report of Addl. S.E. enforcement unit-4, Amritsar dated 28.04.2018 the  account of the consumer for consumption was over hauled as per rules and the amended supplementary bill for 12144 unit was sent. The presence of the consumer is not required in the laboratory during checking of the burnt meters and the said presence of consumer is required only in those cases where accuracy of the meter is in doubt or there is suspicion of tempering of the meter also. No bill has been sent to the complainant and has only been sent to consumer Balwant Singh and the said Balwant Singh has not filed any complaint nor raised any objections to the said bill and has not even challenged the said bill by depositing necessary fees. There is no violation of section 54.7 of the supply code as wrongly and falsely alleged. The account has been overhauled for the energy consumption and which could not be actually billed earlier for the reasons mentioned in above paras of reply. No amount has been claimed from the consumer for any theft of energy. Rather consumption charges bill is issued. The bill was for consumption charges only. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have denied the other allegations of the complaint and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.  Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have tendered in evidence documents i.e. copy of Consumer Ledger is Ex.-OP-1, copy of Lab Challan is Ex.-OP-2,  Copy of Report of S.E. Enforcement is Ex.-OP-3,       Affidavit Amar Kumar S.D.O. Ex.-OP-4.

3        Notice was issued to the opposite party No. 4 but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 4, therefore, opposite party No. 4 was proceeded against exparte by this Forum, vide order dated 27.9.2018.

4        We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 to 3 and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.

5        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that he is a consumer of domestic Electric Connection No.3001011189 old connection No.T63FP321357A and meter No.1660252 fixed at his residence and complainant has been paying the electric bill/ charges regularly and has never been declared as defaulter. Originally the meter was in the name of Balwant Singh son of Gurnam Singh resident of Focal Point Tarn Taran. The complainant was paying the rent/ bill of the consumption of electricity as per bill and last bill 8^th May, 2018 bearing bill No.1049718E081217081 is Rs.2,370/- and the same was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties. He further contended that the complainant is using the electricity and is making the payment of electricity consumed by him to the opposite parties, as such the complainant is beneficiary qua the connection in question. The enforcement staff of PSPC Ltd. alleged to have checked the above said disputed connection on 28.04.2018 and as per the checking report dated 28.04.2018 the concerned official wrongly written that as per serial No.21 account No.FP32/1357 meter reading is 24270 and as per challan the reading has been mentioned 12126 as such, the above said official has wrongly calculated Unit 12144 and wrongly written type of industry 1-1 unpacked meter and sent  bill of Rs.1,16,180/- which is wrong and very excessive and beyond any reason. The alleged checking was done in the absence of the complainant and enforcement staff wrongly written that report as per Challan No.116 and wrongly sent the bill of Rs.1,16,180/-. The alleged bill dated 25.07.2018 is very much excessive as the complainant has not consumed the said electricity energy and wrongly sent the said bill without any right or title. The complainant made representation orally to the opposite parties and also opposite party No. 1 S.D.O., P.S.P.C. Ltd. Tarn Taran and as per his order that the lenient view taken against the complainant and never imposed the above said charges but the opposite parties nothing to do in this matter. The complainant paid the bill regularly as per consumption of the electricity and now ready to pay the bill as earlier. He further contended that the checking has been made in contradiction and in violation of section 54.7 of the electricity supply manual as such, the alleged report is vitiated in law. The meter was neither sealed nor was packed as per the above said instruction. The demand order is highly illegal and unlawful as the complainant has not committed any theft of electricity and is not liable to pay Rs.1,16,180/-. The opposite party No.1 on written representation of the complainant has referred the matter to Administrator Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. to submit his report in respect of the alleged checking report vide challan No.116. As per the earlier bill issued to the complainant the meter status was found to be (O) and no adverse report was submitted by the meter inspector which also falsify the claim of the opposite parties. Electricity is fundamental right (need) of the complainant. In the light of facts mentioned above a prima facie case is made out against the opposite parties. He also contended that before adding the amount as sundry charges in the bill Ex. C-2, the opposite parties have not issued prior detailed notice of the sundry charges to the complainant. The above mentioned facts on the part of opposite parties clearly shows negligence and deficiency in the services provided on the part of opposite parties and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.             

6        Ld. counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 contended that there is no official called Chairman PSPCL the present complaint has intentionally been filed against non-existent person in order to cause mis-representation. He further contended that there is no agreement in between the complainant and PSPCL for supply of energy to the complainant through the domestic connection in dispute. The complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint, it was the complainant is not the consumer of the electric connection bearing number as mentioned. Rather, Balwant Singh son of Gurnam Singh is the consumer as per existing record of the opposite parties and the complainant is neither the consumer nor has got any locus standi to file present complaint as there is no relationship of supplier and consumer of electricity in between the complainant and the opposite parties.  No payment of any consumption of bill charges has been made by the complainant in his name. Whatever amount is paid and receipts are issued for the payment in the name of Balwant Singh. The complainant be put to strict documentary proof of having made any consumption charges payment through official receipts of PSPCL which might have been issued in his name.  The electricity consumption meter was reported to be burnt and was removed from the spot of its installation with consumption reading standing and showing at 12126 units. Whereas, the actual recorded consumption was found to be 24270 units during laboratory check in meter testing laboratory of PSPCL at Verka (Amritsar) in this way there is a difference of 12144 units which were short billed and as per report of Addl. S.E. enforcement unit-4, Amritsar dated 28.04.2018 the account of the consumer for consumption was over hauled as per rules and the amended supplementary bill for 12144 unit was sent. The presence of the consumer is not required in the laboratory during checking of the burnt meters and the said presence of consumer is required only in those cases where accuracy of the meter is in doubt or there is suspicion of tempering of the meter also. No bill has been sent to the complainant and has only been sent to consumer Balwant Singh and the said Balwant Singh has not filed any complaint nor raised any objections to the said bill and has not even challenged the said bill by depositing necessary fees. There is no violation of section 54.7 of the supply code as wrongly and falsely alleged. The account has been overhauled for the energy consumption and which could not be actually billed earlier for the reasons mentioned in above paras of reply. No amount has been claimed from the consumer for any theft of energy. Rather consumption charges bill is issued. The bill was for consumption charges only and prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

7        The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have taken objection that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. But in the present complaint, the complainant is using the connection in question in his residence and is paying the electricity bills regularly and as such, the complainant is beneficiary of the above said connection and is consumer of the opposite parties No. 1 to 3.  In the written version, the opposite parties are taking the stand that the amount mentioned in the bill is of the consumption charges. Rather the Bill Ex. C-2 shows that the opposite parties have claimed Rs. 1,02,530/- as sundry charges.  The bill Ex. C-2 is showing that the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have added amount of Rs. 1,02,530/- as Sundry Charges and there is no any document placed on record by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 which shows that prior detailed notice has been given to the complainant before adding the sundry charges in his bill Ex. C-2. So there is violation of provisions of rules and regulations framed by the opposite party itself as opposite parties 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.   Moreover, in the Ex. C-1, the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 have not mentioned how this amount in question has been calculated  in Ex. C-1.

8        In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the Bill Ex. C-2 is quashed and the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 are directed to issue fresh bill on the basis of actual consumption for the disputed period after recording the consumption of proceedings 6 months on average basis. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3, the complainant is also entitled to Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only)  as compensation on account of harassment and Rs. 3,000/-(Rs. Three Thousand only) as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 are directed to comply with the order immediately from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till realization. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.