Complaint No: 80 of 2021.

      Date of Institution: 16.03.2021.

               Date of order:04.01.2024.

Parmjeet Singh aged about 60 years Son of Sh. Rajinder Singh, resident of Village Gokhuwal, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, Aadhaar No. 8875 7884 0514. Pin Code – 143505.

                                                                                                                                                                                     .....Complainant.

                                               VERSUS

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, the Mall Patiala, through its Chief Managing Director, Pin Code – 147001.

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division Sub Urban Division Batala (North), Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur, through its S.D.O. Pin Code – 143505.

3.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Batala, Tehsil Batala District Gurdaspur, through its X.E.N. Pin Code – 143505.

                                                                                                                                                   .....Opposite parties.     

                                                   Complaint Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.B.S.Dhakala, Advocate.

             For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Opinder Rana, Advocate.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

          Parmjeet Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 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 has got installed an electric connection in his house for domestic purpose bearing No. G22KL87115K, contract A/c No. 3001442183 and the sanctioned load is 7.9 K.W. The meter is located inside the house of the complainant and he is using electricity from the same and has been paying the consumption charges regularly to the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant is consumer to the opposite parties. It was pleaded that the complainant is a senior citizen and his average consumption of electricity in his house is about of 400 to 500 units (in billing period of two months). It was further pleaded that on dated 01.03.2021 the opposite parties sent a bill to the complainant with heavy demand of bill dues i.e. amounting to Rs.1,75,980/-. In the said bill total consumption of electricity was shown as 480 Units of 61 days and status of bill is "0" and shown current consumption charges of Rs.2,673/-, arrears of Rs.6,659/- and sundry charges of Rs.1,64,891/- and due date for payment is 16.03.2021. It was further pleaded that in fact, the amount of sundry charges has been shown in the disputed bill is without mentioning any reasons and notice and same is illegal, null and void, against the rules and regulation of the manual of PSPCL and is not as per the actual consumption of the complainant. After receiving the bill in question, the complainant immediately approached to the office of opposite party No. 2 and moved an application on dated 02.03.2021 regarding the rectification in the bill as the complainant has not use electricity energy to that extent nor he was in arrears of the consumption in previous bills. It was further pleaded that then the opposite party No. 2 assured the complainant that his bill will be rectified after enquiry and on the request of the complainant, some official of the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant and they checked the meter which situated inside of premises of the complainant and also verified the account of the complainant and at last found that the bills in question was printed and sent to the complainant mistakenly due to clerical mistake and the opposite parties further assured to the complainant that he has no need to worry about the same and they will be rectify the same will inform to the complainant and will sent a new correct bill. It was further pleaded that on dated 15.03.2021 at about 2:00 P.M. the complainant was out of station and his wife was present in the house. To the utter surprise, some officials of the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant in his absence and disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant without giving any notice to him and before resolving the complaint of the complainant moved by him on dated 02.03.2021. It was further pleaded that the alleged demand of the opposite parties is without any checking and notice and disconnected the supply to the house of the complainant is also illegal, against the rules and without any basis, thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 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 exclude amount added as arrears of Rs.6,659/- and sundry charges of Rs.1,64,891/- from the bills in dispute and to recover the actual consumption amount from him after rectification of the above mentioned bill. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as mental agony, loss to reputation, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to the complainant and also to pay Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses which the complainant has incurred. The complainant may kindly be granted any other relief to which he is legally and equitably entitled to as per the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint with the intention to harass the opposite parties. It was pleaded that the complainant has not approached this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and has concealed the material facts, intentionally and deliberately. The present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not fallen in the preview of the consumer and the complaint of the complainant is lack of ingredients and is liable to be dismissed. It was further pleaded that the bill dated 01.03.2021 sent by the opposite parties to the complainant is legal and genuine. The amount demanded by the opposite parties vide above said bill is the unpaid energy charges of the account No. 3003369663 which is sanctioned in the name of the complainant but, the complainant did not pay the energy charges of the above said account number. Hence, the opposite parties added the amount of Rs.1,64,891/- of the unpaid energy charges of account No. 3003369663 in the account No. 3001442183. It was further pleaded that before adding the above said amount the opposite parties prepared the LCR and also sent the notice to the complainant but, the complainant deliberately concealed the material facts with the intention to take undue advantage of the process of law with the motive to grab the public money.

          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 the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Parmjeet Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Sukhjinder Singh, (S.D.O, P.S.P.C. Ltd, Sub – Division North Batala, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4.

6.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments filed by the opposite parties but not filed by the complainant.

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.       The complainant submitted electricity bill dated 01.03.2021 bearing A/c No.3001442183 as Ex.C2 wherein an amount of Rs.1,64,891/- are shown as added under sundry charges and Rs.6,659/- as previous arrears alongwith current energy charges. It has been alleged by the complainant that the charges added in this disputed bill are illegal, null & void and charged without mentioning any reason and notice. Complainant also placed on record a copy of representation dated 02.03.2021 as Ex.C3 sent to opposite party No.2 for rectification of the dispute bill.

10.     Opposite parties in their written statement denied all the allegations and stated that the amount of Rs.1,64,891/- added in the disputed bill as sundry charges is the unpaid charges of another account number 3003369663 which was also in the name of the complainant. Further, it has been pleaded that notice was also issued to the complainant in this regard but opposite parties failed to put on record copy of such notice ever issued and also not mentioned any notice number etc. in the written statement and written arguments. Opposite parties have placed on record copy of LCR No.4/1901 as Ex.OP-3 where it is simply mentioned the account number in which the disputed amount is to be charged but the basis on which the amount is recommended to be charged has not been clarified in the said LCR. Place and category of the other connection has also not been mentioned in this report.

11.     From the details of the case and the evidences put forth in the file it is seen that opposite parties failed to prove with the cogent evidence that:-

          i)       Whether the amount added in the disputed bill was related to the same premises or some other premises.

          ii)      There is no Electricity bill or other document showing that the pending unpaid amount is actually related to the       complainant.

          iii)     Neither the category of the connection to which the disputed amount is related nor period of pending unpaid amount has been mentioned.

          iv)     The notice issued for recovery of this disputed amount from the complainant has also not been put on record.

          v)      Action taken for recovery of this pending amount before adding it to the disputed bill of the complainant.    

12.     Here we draw support from IV (2004) CLT 622 wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case ‘Punjab State Electricity Board Versus Gurjit Kaur’  as referred in order dated 14.09.2021 in the C.C.No.149/2020 of this commission that

          “No law shown which permitted the amount outstanding against one connection that could be added in the bill of another connection if the demanded related to the same consumer.”

          It is further stated in para No.7 of this judgment that:-

          “It is an admitted case of the parties that the demand in dispute related to another connection bearing account No.CF 75/0487        and the same was added to the account of the complainant. The demand made by the opposite parties related to the connection, which was in the name of Surya Kiran A.C. Market Welfare Society. The said amount under the rules of the opposite party itself as has not been denied by the learned counsel for the appellants could not be added to the account of the complainant. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. All these appeals, namely, Appeal Nos.746 to 753 of 2003 are, thus, dismissed in      limini. It is, however, ordered that the opposite parties are at liberty to demand and secure the payment with regard to the energy consumed from any other consumer from whom it is due.”

13.     Further more definite guidelines are given in the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 2018 of PSPCL under instructions No.92.3 which read as under:-

          “The disconnected consumers who are defaulters of PSPCL may sell their premises /property without any intimation to           PSPCL. If this happens, the chances of recovery of defaulting amount become remote. Therefore, it is desirable that the field officers may intimate the revenue authorities like SDM/Tehsildar regarding the amount to be paid by the consumer to the PSPCL so that if any transaction regarding sale or purchase of the property takes place, the revenue authorities may be in a position to recover the outstanding amount due to the PSPCL at the time of such sale or purchase and pass on to PSPCL.”.  

14.     Besides this as per Electricity Supply Code-2014 regulation 32.2, no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two years, which reads as under:

          “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, shall be   recoverable after the period of two years from the date   when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied.”

In the present case the period of unpaid amount has not been disclosed by opposite parties, it may be beyond 2 years.

15.     When the facts of the present case are viewed in the light of above referred cases and concerned regulation/instructions of the department of opposite parties as discussed in the preceding paras it becomes clear that the demand of Rs.1,64,891/- raised by the opposite parties pertaining to the electric connection No.3003369663 and charged to other electric connection no.3001442183 is unjustified, illegal and as such this demand is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

16.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.2 is hereby directed to correct/rectify the disputed bill dated 01.03.2021 by excluding the amount of Rs.1,64,891/- charged as sundry charges as this amount is not chargeable to the account No.3001442183 of the complainant. No order as to costs.

17.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency.

18.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                          

      (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                 President  

Announced:                                               (B.S.Matharu)

Jan. 04, 2024                                                     Member

YP.