New Complaint No.228 of 2023.
Date of Institution:26.10.2023.
Old Complaint No:268 of 2018.
Date of Institution: 13.06.2018.
Date of order:05.02.2024.
Satish Khosla Son of Late Mohinder Pal, Ward No. 6, Arya Smaj Road, Tehsil Dhariwal and District Gurdaspur.
.....Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala. Pin Code – 147001.
2. XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Dhariwal.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Jail Road, Gurdaspur Circle, through its Superintendent Engineer.
4. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Dhariwal Tehsil and District Gurdaspur, through its Sub Divisional Officer.
.....Opposite parties.
Complaint U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Varun Gosain, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.J.S. Kaler, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
Satish Khosla, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against P.S.P.C.Ltd. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is the Consumer of the opposite parties having electricity Connection No. G31CF250002M. It was pleaded that the connection in dispute is in the name of Karam Chand, who was Grand Father of the complainant now he was died and the complainant Grandson of Late Karam Chand is running the Kariana shop. Now the complainant being beneficiary is using the electric connection and is making payment of bills to the opposite parties. The complainant falls under the definition of consumer as provided under The Consumer Protection Act & is competent to file the present complaint. It was further pleaded that the present electricity connection is Non-Residential Service (NRS) and the complainant is using the electricity for his household business Kariana shop and is regularly paying the bills to the opposite parties using services exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment hence falls under the definition of Consumer of the opposite parties and is covered by the judgment cited as 2008 (2) CLT 206 rendered by the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, "an industry is included within the ambit of Consumer where services are availed of for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment with the assistance of two or three persons and the consumption is in few units, the bills amounted to few thousand of INR (Indian National Rupee)". The Load of electricity connection of the complainant is 1.78 K.W. It was further pleaded that the complainant never indulged in any illegal activities and is a law abiding Citizen. It was further pleaded that the complainant received bill dated 31.05.2018, in which the opposite parties has wrongly send bill for amounting of Rs.46,900/-. The complainant never consumed too much electricity. Previously the average bill of the complainant was bill dated 07.04.2017 amounted to Rs.950/-, bill dated 04.10.2017 amounted to Rs.690/-, bill dated 01.12.2017 amounted to Rs.880/-, bill dated 01.02.2018 amounted to Rs.1590 and bill dated 09.04.2018 amounted to Rs.1730/-. The complainant wants to know about the huge amount bill from the opposite parties, but failed to explain how the amount has been taken. The bill dated 31.05.2018 is illegal, null and void. It was further pleaded that to the utter surprise of the complainant, the opposite parties without giving any notice, explanation or intimation sent the huge bill dated 31.05.2018 to the complainant and the opposite parties have no right to recover the amount from the complainant. It was further pleaded that the cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint when he received a bill dated 31.05.2018 amounting to Rs.46,900/- from the opposite parties. The cause of action is still subsisting as the opposite parties have refused to withdraw the illegal bill dated 31.05.2018. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned, illegal, null and void bill amounting to Rs.46,900/- dated 31.05.2018 alongwith penalty, if any, for not paying the same. It is further prayed that the complainant may be awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment, mental agony and Rs.10,000 for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses incurred by the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply, stating therein that the bill issued to the complainant is difference of units. The average monthly bill from June 2017 to Nov 2017 was issued to the complainant as reading of the meter of the complainant was not visible. It was pleaded that the meter of the complainant was sent to M.E Lab Gurdaspur vide challan No. 115/34 dated 11.01.2018 where the final reading after checking in the M.E Lab of the meter was 8084 units. The complainant has paid billing up to 2702 units out of 8084 units. The billing of balance 5382 units has to be paid by the complainant. It was further pleaded that after payment of average 405 units received the balance of 4977 units for which recovery of Rs.43,851/- is balance amount against the complainant. Now at present alongwith current bill up to May 2018 the total amount of Rs.46,900/- stands against the complainant.
On merits, the opposite parties denied all the averments of the complaint stating that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed Self-Attested affidavit of Satish Khosla, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has filed documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
9. In the present complaint the electricity bill dated 31.05.2018 amounting to Rs.46,900/- bearing A/c No.G31CA250002M which is placed at Ex.C1 was put under dispute by the complainant alleging that it is huge, wrong and illegal as normal previous bill varied from Rs.880/- to Rs.1730/-. Copies of some of the previous bills are placed at Ex.C-2 to Ex.C6.
10. As per para No.1 of the complaint it is mentioned by the complainant that this electric connection is in the name of his grandfather and after his death he is presently user of this connection as beneficiary. Further, it is also pleaded that he is using this connection at karyana shop for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Hence, as per CPA, 2019 (7) (ii) (a) and relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Civil Appeal No.1042 of 2020 in the case titled as Canara Bank. Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & others (Para 25) regarding treating beneficiary as consumer, the present complaint has been considered for adjudication in this Commission.
11. Opposite parties in their written reply denied all the allegations and stated that the disputed bill is charged on the basis of difference of units as per M.E.Lab. report vide challan No.115 dated 11.01.2018 as Ex.OP-1. It was pleaded that these units are related to the period June, 2017 to November, 2017. It was further pointed out that the complainant paid the electricity bill upto reading of 2702 units but as per M.E.Lab. report the reading was found to be 8084 units so the amount of Rs.43,851/- for the difference of units was charged in the disputed bill as sundry charges.
12. As per bill ledger placed at Ex.OP-3 page 2 by opposite parties it is seen that the amount of bills for the month of 06/2017, 08/2017 and 10/2017 has been revised/overhauled. M.E.Lab. report on challan No.115 at Ex.OP-1 the meter status is shown as Dead Stop with reading as 8084 units. The perusal of the evidence in the case file shows that the meter was defective/dead stop and opposite parties have considered the reading of the defective meter as correct but opposite parties have failed to prove with the cogent evidences that under which regulation the reading of the defective/dead stop meter was taken as correct whereas there is a definite procedure laid down under regulation 21.5.2 of Electricity Supply Code 2014 regarding overhauling of consumer account in respect of defective meter which is read as under:-
"21.5.2. Defective (other than inaccurate)/Dead Stop/Burnt/Stolen Meters
The accounts of a consumer shall be overhauled/billed for the period meter remained defective/dead stop and in case of burnt/stolen meter for the period of direct supply subject to maximum period of six months as per procedure given below:
a) On the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year.
b) In case the consumption of corresponding period of the previous year as referred in para (a) above is not available, the average monthly consumption of previous six (6) months during which the meter was functional, shall be adopted for overhauling of accounts.
c) If neither the consumption of corresponding period of previous year (para-a) nor for the last six months (para-b) is available then average of the consumption for the period the meter worked correctly during the last 6 months shall be taken for overhauling the account of the consumer.
d) Where the consumption for the previous months/period as referred para (a) to para (c) is not available the consumer shall be tentatively billed on the basis of consumption assessed as per para -4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the corresponding period of the succeeding year.
e) The energy consumption determined as per para (a) to (d) above shall be adjusted for the change of load/demand, if any, during the period of overhauling of accounts”.
13. Further as per Electricity Supply Code-2014, Regulation 30.1.2 which is read as under:-
“The bill cum notice for arrears in the case of under assessment or the charges levied as a result of checking etc. shall be initially tendered separately and shall not be clubbed with the current electricity bill. The arrear bill cum notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrears alongwith calculation details of such arrears”
A separate notice is required to be issued to the consumer alongwith all detail before charging the amount in the electricity bill. But in this case no such notice has ever been issued to the complainant. In this way opposite parties have violated their own instructions as quoted above. Hence, it contribute to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
14. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the amount of Rs.43,851/- charged as sundry charges in the disputed bill dated 31.05.2018 at Ex.C1 is not justified at all.
15. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and the amount of Rs.43,851/- charged in the disputed bill dated 31.05.2018 is hereby set aside and opposite party No.4 is directed to rectify the disputed bill by excluding the above amount. However, opposite party No.4 is at liberty to overhaul the account of the complainant for the month of 06/2017, 08/2018 and 20/2017 as per guidelines given in the regulation 21.5.2 of Electricity Supply Code 2014. No order as to costs.
16. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
17. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Feb. 05, 2024 Member
*YP*
