Jathedar Ujjagar Singh Sekhwan Memorial Trust, (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 the PSPCL (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant was a Charitable Trust and is running a Nursing College and Charitable Hospital. It cannot sue personally, however the members of the Trust have passed resolution dated 02.06.2019 vide Which Tarsem Singh Manager-Cum-Superintendent has been authorized to file the present case. It was alleged that the opposite parties have installed electricity meter in their premises bearing A/c No.G37GT370008H and paying the electricity bills as per the actual consumption recorded by the electricity meter regularly and without any default. It was further alleged that the opposite parties issued electricity bill dated 18.05.2019 Bill No.4 in which they have illegally demanded Rs.36,771/- as Sundry charges alongwith the bill of Rs.30,875/-and demanded Rs.68,170/- in total. It is further alleged that they approached to the opposite parties and requested to withdraw the illegal demanded of Rs.36,771/- vide bill no.4 dated 18.05.2019. However they were ready to deposit the electricity bill under protest but the opposite parties did not concede the requests of him and pressurized to deposit entire amount of Rs.68,170/- including the alleged amount of Sundry charges of Rs.36,771/-. It is further alleged that to the very surprise of the complainant, the opposite parties again issued Bill No.5 dated 20.06.2019 raising illegal demand of Rs.69,403/- as alleged arrears. Again they approached to the opposite parties and requested to withdraw the illegal demands of Rs.69,403/- on account of alleged arrears, whereas they were not liable to pay the said amount of Rs.69,403/- in any manner as they have been regularly depositing the electricity consumption bill without any default. It was further alleged that no notice was ever issued to them before raising the demand of Rs.36,771/- as Sundry charges vide bill No. 4 dated 18.05.2019 and as well as raising illegal demand of Rs.69,403/- vide bill No.5 dated 20.06.2019 and no opportunity of being heard was afforded to them. No order of assessment was ever passed against them. It is further alleged that they approached to the opposite parties and submitted that they were ready to deposit the electricity charges except the alleged demand of Sundry charges and alleged arrears, but the opposite parties did not allowed them to deposit the consumption charges and compelled them to deposit the amount of Rs.69,403/- illegally demanded by them vide bill No.5 dated 20.06.2019 and also threatened them that they will disconnect the electricity supply to their premises if the entire amount including the illegal demand was not deposited. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment and inconvenience. So, there was a clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that directions may be issued to the opposite parties to withdraw the bill No.4 dated 18.05.2019 and Bill No.5 dated 20.06.2019 and also restrained the opposite parties to recover the amount of Rs.69,403/- from the complainant on the basis of Bill No.5 dated 20.06.2019 under the threats of disconnecting the electricity meter of the complainant bearing A/C No.G37GT370008H. The opposite parties may be further burdened with compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon Notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable and the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. It was pleaded that the complainant has filed a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint by concealing the true facts from this Hon’ble Commission and as such the complainant was liable to be burdened with special costs and the complainant has filed the present complaint with sole motive to avoid payment of the electricity charges legally and rightly demanded by the respondents for the electricity consumed by them. It was further pleaded that the complaint was not disputed regarding issuance of bill dated 18.05.2019 and the bill issued to the complainant is legal, genuine and valid one. Fact of matter is that on meter of the complainant was checked in ME Lab on 12.02.2019 by the enforcement checking No.13/2394 and an amount of Rs.36,771/- has rightly been demanded. It is further pleaded that the complainant is fully aware about the same. The complainant was also fully apprised about the demand of the respondents. The complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing all the above mentioned facts with sole motive to avoid payment of legally and rightly demanded amount

          On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with special costs.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Tarsem Singh S/o Diwan Singh (Manager/ Superintendent of Jathedar Ujjagar Singh Sekhwan Memorial Trust, Gurdaspur) as Ex.CW-1/A along-with other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Hans Raj (S.D.O. PSPCL, Sub-Division, Dehriwal Daroga, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1 along with other document Ex.OP-2.

6.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties and we have heard the counsels for 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.       As enumerated in para No.1 of the complaint the present case was related to Charitable Trust running a Charitable Hospital and Nursing College through Manager/Superintendent who has been authorized as per resolution as Ex.C1.

10.     It was alleged by the complainant that the opposite party No.2 has demanded Rs.36,771/- as sundry charges in the electricity bill dated 18.05.2019 as per Ex.C3 against A/c No. G37GT370008H and claimed it to be illegal demand. Further, it was also alleged that the opposite parties has charged Rs.69,403/- as arrear in the electricity bill dated 20.06.2019 illegally.

11.     Opposite parties in their written statement stated that the meter of the complainant was defective/burnt and it was checked in the M.E. Lab. on 12.02.2019. The amount in dispute was charged in the bill dated 18.05.2019 as per instructions given by the Enforcement vide their checking report No.13/2394 placed as Ex.OP-2 which is claimed to be legal and genuine. As per Ex.OP-2, the checking report No.13/2394 placed on record by opposite parties, it was clearly mentioned that there was difference of units of 4316 units, so, the amount of Rs.36,771/- was demanded on the basis of these units. Further, it was mentioned that meter block is burnt.

12.     From the above detail of the case we find that there is dispute of Rs.36,771/- charged as sundry charges in the electricity bill dated 18.05.2019 whereas the amount of Rs.69,403/- charged in the bill dated 20.06.2019 was the carry forward amount of previous bills mentioned in the arrear column. Further opposite parties have failed to put on record:- i) Evidence of change of the defective/burnt meter. ii) Any document showing the presence of complainant during the checking of the meter in M.E.Lab. iii) Justification of units charged. iv) copy of regulation of the department for taking the reading of defective/burnt meter as correct. v) Copy of the notice issued to the complainant prior to addition of disputed amount in the bill in question.

13.     As per Electricity Supply Code, 2014, regulation 30.1.2, notice is required to be issued to recover such amounts and further as per regulation 21.5.2, there is definite procedure laid down to deal with the cases of defective/burnt meter regarding charging of units for overhauling of accounts.

14.     The opposite parties have failed to follow the instructions of their own department. As such we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the amount of Rs.36,771/- charged as sundry charges is not justified at all.

15.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts of the case, the present complaint is partly allowed and amount of Rs.36,771/- charged as sundry charges in the electricity bill dated 18.05.2019 is hereby set aside and any amount deposited from this sundry charges by the complainant be refunded/adjusted in the future bills. 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. File be consigned.                                                                                                          

      (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                             President  

Announced:                                               (B.S.Matharu)

Aug. 11, 2023                                                    Member

YP.