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

Consumer Complaint No  :   32 of 2017

Date of Institution                      : 10.05.2017

Date of Decision               : 23.12.2019

Swaran Kaur widow of Boota Singh, resident of village Bhojian Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.

                                                ...Complainant

Versus

1. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division Jhabal, Tarn Taran.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Patiala through its Managing Director/ Chairman.

…Opposite Parties.

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

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member

For Complainant                     Sh. Ravinder Singh Khehra Advocate

For Opposite Parties               Sh. K.M. Gupta Advocate

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant Swaran Kaur has filed the present complaint under Section  12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division Jhabal, Tarn Taran and another (Opposite Parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of opposite parties with prayer to direct the opposite parties to withdraw the Bill No. 61 dated 22.3.2017 amounting to Rs. 29,414/- and prayed Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is consumer of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and the complaint is holder of One Electric Connection No. BN66-1318P and the complainant has been using the above said connection since a long time. On 20.4.2015, opposite parties without any notice or informing to complainant and without any intimation have changed the meter of complainant and complainant was continuously paying the bill to opposite parties in the year 2015 to 2016. On 7.12.2016 the opposite parties have illegally disconnected the electricity meter of the complainant without any reason and rhyme and due to disconnection of the electric connection, the complainant is suffering a lot and the family member of the complainant are also facing much problems. And the connection is required to be installed. The opposite parties issued one Bill No.617 dated 22.03.2017 amounting to Rs.59,916/- which is illegal, null and void, against law, against facts and is liable to be set aside/ cancelled and opposite parties gave offer to complainant that she should pay Rs.30,000/- and opposite parties will install the meter. Complainant has been enticed with opposite parties offer and paid Rs.30,000/- to opposite parties on 02.05.2017. Thereafter, nobody came from opposite parties in the house of complainant for installation of the meter and electricity connection. Now balance amount Rs.29,414/- has been shown as energy charges which is against law, against facts and the complainant has been continuing paying the electricity charges to the opposite parties time to time and no arrear is due against the complainant as alleged by the opposite parties and such, a huge bill has been imposed to the complainant and the complainant being a poor and old aged lady is unable to pay the alleged amount which has been imposed to the complainant illegally, without any basis and the complainant is not liable to pay any alleged amount to the opposite parties and the alleged bill is liable to be quashed. The complainant approached to the opposite parties many a times and requested to opposite parties to correct the bill and not to recover any alleged amount of bill No.61 dated 22.03.2017 but the opposite parties have finally refused to accept the request of the complainant. Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties but her connection stands permanently disconnected in March 2017 due to non-payment of dues, from the date of permanent disconnection, she is no more a consumer and for that reason the present complaint is not maintainable. The meter installed at the premises of the complainant was not having a working display on the meter and due to that actual consumption could not be recorded and the bill was being issued on the average consumption. The complainant had been paying the bills on the basis of average consumption from April 2015 onwards. After the change of meter in April, 2015 with initial reading of 000 the computer recording the consumption continued showing average consumption and accordingly bill were issued from March, 2015 to September, 2015 whereas the actual consumption for this period was 5526 units and for this consumption the energy charges of Rs. 34,112/- and electricity duty Rs.6,140/- and a total amount of Rs. 40,252/- was payable and after  deducting Rs. 10,838/- as amount paid during this period on average consumption basis an amount of Rs. 29,414/- was payable by the complainant to the opposite parties which she has failed to pay. This amount is not by way of any penalty but is payable as per actual consumption. The connection is disconnected due to non-payment of consumption charges due from the complainant. A notice along with detailed calculation was sent to the complainant requiring her to make the payment of consumption charges raised for the period April, 2015 to October, 2015 amounting to Rs.29,414/- but inspite of the receipt of the notice and calculation sheet the complainant failed to make the payment in full. As the amount claimed through notice was not paid, the same was included in current consumption bill. And the complainant has failed to make payment of the amount claimed for consumption. She is not entitled for any relief , till the time of getting the connection restored by paying the balance due amount alongwith restoration charges. The law is well settled that a person seeking equity must do equity. There is no reason for questioning the consumption charges bill. There is no reason for the complainant suffering mental harassment and agony or suffering any loss if the bill for consumption charges is paid by her to which she is legally bound to pay and all the other allegations in the complaint have been denied by the opposite parties and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4        To prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1 affidavit of Manjit Singh Ex. C-2, affidavit of Mandeep Singh Ex. C-3 alongwith documents Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-15 and closed her evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties tendered                                                               in evidence affidavit of Karnail Singh SDO Ex. OPs/1 alongwith documents Ex. OPs/2 to Ex. OPs/5 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and opposite parties and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.

6        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that he is consumer of opposite parties and the complaint is holder of one Electric Connection No. BN66-1318P and the complainant has been using the above said connection since a long time. On 20.4.2015, opposite parties without any notice or informing to complainant and without any intimation have changed the meter of complainant and complainant was continuously paying the bill to opposite parties in the year 2015 to 2016. He further contended that on 7.12.2016 the opposite parties have illegally disconnected the electricity meter of the complainant without any reason and rhyme and due to disconnection of the electric connection, the complainant is suffering a lot and the family member of the complainant are also facing much problems. And the connection is required to be installed. He further contended that the opposite parties issued one Bill No.617 dated 22.03.2017 amounting to Rs.59,916/- which is illegal, null and void, against law, against facts and is liable to be set aside/ cancelled and opposite parties gave offer to complainant that she should pay Rs.30,000/- and opposite parties will install the meter. Complainant has been enticed with opposite parties offer and paid Rs.30,000/- to opposite parties on 02.05.2017 which is Ex. C-10. Thereafter, nobody came from opposite parties in the house of complainant for installation of the meter and electricity connection. Now balance amount of Rs.29,414/- has been shown as energy charges which is against law, against facts. Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite parties have not issued detailed notice to the complainant before adding the Sundry Charges in the bill of the complainant. The complainant approached to the opposite parties many a times and requested to opposite parties to correct the bill and not to recover any alleged amount of bill No.61 dated 22.03.2017 but the opposite parties have finally refused to accept the request of the complainant and prayed that the present complaint may be allowed.  

7        Ld. counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties but her connection stands permanently disconnected in March 2017 due to non-payment of dues from the date of permanent disconnection of connection of the complainant she is no more a consumer and for that reason the present complaint is not maintainable. He further contended that the meter installed at the premises of the complainant was not having a working display on the meter and due to that actual consumption could not be recorded and the bill was being issued on the average consumption. The complainant had been paying the bills on the basis of average consumption from April 2015 onwards. After the change of meter in April, 2015 with initial reading of 000 the computer recording the consumption continued showing average consumption and accordingly bills were issued from March, 2015 to September, 2015 whereas the actual consumption for this period was 5526 units and for this consumption the energy charges of Rs. 34,112/- and electricity duty Rs.6,140/- and a total amount of Rs. 40,252/- was payable and after  deducting Rs. 10,838/- as amount paid during this period on average consumption basis an amount of Rs. 29,414/- was payable by the complainant to the opposite parties which she has failed to pay. This amount is not by way of any penalty but is payable as per actual consumption. The connection is disconnected due to non-payment of consumption charges due from the complainant. He further contended that a notice alongwith detailed calculation was sent to the complainant requiring her to make the payment of consumption charges raised for the period April, 2015 to October, 2015 amounting to Rs.29,414/- but inspite of the receipt of the notice and calculation sheet, the complainant failed to make the payment in full. As the amount claimed through notice was not paid, the same was included in current consumption bill. And the complainant has failed to make payment of the amount claimed for consumption. She is not entitled for any relief , till the time of getting the connection restored by paying the balance due amount alongwith restoration charges. The law is well settled that a person seeking equity must do equity. There is no reason for questioning the consumption charges bill. There is no reason for the complainant suffering mental harassment and agony or suffering any loss if the bill for consumption charges is paid by her to which she is legally bound to pay. He prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed.  The opposite parties relied upon 1978 AIR (Bombay) 369, 2006(1) CLT 638, 1996(3) CPJ 71 of Hon’ble National Commission.

8        In the present case, the complainant as challenged the bill dated 22.3.2017 Ex. C-9 in which an amount of Rs. 59,597/- has been shown as sundry charges and on demand the complainant has deposited Rs. 30,000/- on 2.5.2017 vide Ex. C-10 to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties have placed on record calculation sheets which does not tally with the amount of Rs.  59,597/- sundry charges and the in the written version the opposite parties allege that meter installed at the premises of the complainant was not having a working display on the meter and due to that actual consumption could not be recorded and the bill was being issued on the average consumption. The complainant had been paying the bills on the basis of average consumption from April 2015 onwards. After the change of meter in April, 2015 with initial reading of 000 the computer recording the consumption continued showing average consumption and accordingly bills were issued from March, 2015 to September, 2015 whereas the actual consumption for this period was 5526 units.  The bill Ex. C-9 is showing that the opposite parties have added amount of Rs. 59,597/- as Sundry charges and there is no document placed on record by the opposite parties which shows that prior detailed notice has been given to the complainant before adding the sundry charges in his bill Ex. C-9. 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.  The authorities relied upon by the opposite parties are based on different facts and circumstances and are not applicable to the present case.

9        In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and bill dated 22.3.2017 for Rs. 29,414/- is hereby quashed. The opposite party is 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 party, 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 Party is 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.