Punjab

Gurdaspur

CC/5/2019

Gurdeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Dinesh Kumar Adv.

02 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GURDASPUR
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX , B BLOCK ,2nd Floor Room No. 328
 
Complaint Case No. CC/5/2019
( Date of Filing : 10 Jan 2019 )
 
1. Gurdeep Singh
S/o Inder Singh R/o vill Ranjit Bagh Teh and Distt Gurdaspur
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. P.S.P.C.Ltd
through its Chairman The Mall Patiala
2. 3. S.E ,P.S.P.C.Ltd
Gurdaspur
3. 2. S.D.O.,P.S.P.C.Ltd
circle Sub Urban Gurdaspur
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Sh. Naveen Puri PRESIDENT
  Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu. MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Sh.Dinesh Kumar Adv., Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Sh.Gurmukhnihal Singh Adv., Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 02 Sep 2022
Final Order / Judgement

Sh. Gurdeep Singh a Senior-Citizen has been running his Rural Micro Unit Atta Chakki (Wheat Flour Grinder) & Mini Rice Sheller in the village for earning his family's livelihood through Self-Employment along with the active assistance cum participation of his son; and has been holder of electricity connection no.3000184692 has been throughout paying all its consumption bills on regular basis. However, the OP sub-division had imposed upon him an illegal amount of Rs.63,132/- intimated vide memo (Ex.C2) no. 2119 (01.08.2018), followed by the memo (Ex.C3) no.4154 (14.12.2018) and finally the demand (Ex.C4) bill for Rs.63,132/- imposed as sundry charges. The complainant approached/represented his plight to the titled opposite parties but only to have received threats of disconnection sans any logic/explanation of their excessive/unreasonable demand for electricity-power that he had never consumed; hence prompted the present complaint praying for issuance of directives to the OP corporation not to recover the unjustly drawn bill amount and also to withdraw both the related memos and the impugned bill in the interest of justice. The complaint has been duly supported by the self-attested deposition (Ex.C1/A) as duly filed along with the other above referred to exhibits.          

2.       The titled opposite parties (represented by the OP3 Sub-Division office) upon summoning appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply with its opening preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable in its present form as the complainant has been liable to pay the entire demanded dues in case he wished to avail of the electricity facility and further he needs to execute a new agreement and also to file an indemnity bond, afresh. Also, the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this forum. And, on merits, the OP have admitted complainant to be their consumer only but have further denied all other contents/ allegations as made out in the complaint. The OP have explained that the PSPCL has formulated the power-factor formula to minimize/to discourage power-losses at the consumers' end vide which a surcharge of 1% is levied over and above the consumer bill for every 0.01 decrease in the users' monthly average power factor below 0.90 and this surcharge gets raised to 2% for each 0.01 decrease in monthly average power factor below 0.80. Similarly, there has been an incentive scheme for consumers maintaining the power factor level above 0.90. Further, the OP corporation has admitted that this power factor criteria were not enforced till the irregularity was noticed during their audit-inspection. On scrutiny, the complainant's power-factor was found below 0.9 during 02/2017 to 03/2018 and he was thus required to pay arrears of Rs.47,652/- vide memo 2119 (01.08.2018) within a period of 10 days and as the complainant failed to pay the same was added to his subsequent consumption bills that turned out to be Rs.62,850/- on 21.12.2018 and further to Rs.67,410/- as on 16.01.2019 that was due to and payable by the complainant. Lastly, the OP while filing the affidavit (Ex.OP1) of Sh.Dilbagh Singh SDO along with Supply Instruction Manual (Ex.OP2), Current Bill (Ex.OP3) and Payment Details (Ex.OP4) have also addressed all its demands as legal and valid and have sought dismissal of the present complaint with costs.                                                 

3.       Rejoinder and written arguments filed on behalf of complainant.

4.       We have examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for those ignored to be produced) in order to adjudicate the respective ‘claims’ as put-forth by the litigants in the light of arguments by the respective learned counsels and have also perused the written arguments as stand duly submitted by them. We observe with sad concern that the OP corporation have detected/determined power factor for the period 02/2017 to 03/2018 by virtue of audit-inspection and drew demand bill on 01.08.2018 sans audit report i.e., disclosure as to how the irregularity had first escaped their notice and how the same was formulated for the past period and why preventive measures were not adopted for power-factor support/improvement by way of installation of power-capacitors at the site of the end-users etc. We see the irregularity as part of delinquency at the related OP officials/employees' end reflecting as deficiency in service on the part of the OP corporation. We observe that the OP corporation do have the technical competence so as to formulate suitable capacity capacitors for the end-users in order to avoid/minimize the power-losses during supply/distribution and utilization etc., in stead of levying surcharges etc., at a later stage.       

5.       We find that the complainant has suffered much hardship in managing his micro SSI unit on account of levying of these avoidable surcharges for past consumption and are certainly not convinced with the clarifications as put forth by the OP Corporation to justify its act of recovery of surcharges resulting on account of delinquency at their employees' end amounting to deficiency in service at the corporate level.

6.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party corporation to withdraw the impugned Memos and demand bill reflecting Rs.47,652/- as the sundry/surcharge drawn upon the complainant and not to recover surcharge, interest and late-fee etc if any on account of these Memos from the complainant besides to pay him Rs.10,000/- in lump sum as compensation and cost of litigation within 45 days of receipt of the certified copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual realization.

7.  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.

8.           Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

 

                                                                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                         President.

                                                                    

ANNOUNCED:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

SEPT. 02, 2022.                                                  Member.

YP.

 
 
[ Sh. Naveen Puri]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu.]
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.