DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.443 of 30-08-2011
Decided on 18-01-2012
Aklia Education & Research Society, through its Chairman S. Gurtej Singh Brar, Goniana-Jaitu Road, Bathinda, aged
about 53 years. .......Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
Senior Executive Engineer (D/S) Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Bathinda.
Assistant Executive Engineer, (D/S) Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Goniana, Distt. Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Sham Labhaya, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. J.D.Nayyar, counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding electric connection bearing A/c No.GC-93/02 installed in the college premises and the same is non commercial unit and the profit of the society is not used for individual benefit. The complainant has been regularly paying the bills so issued by the opposite parties and nothing is due against him. The complainant received a provisional assessment order No.634 dated 07.03.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,21,140/- on the basis of checking dated 25.02.2011. The complainant has alleged that the above said notice u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is illegal in itself as the unauthorized load does not fall u/s 126. Even Section 126 is not applied in its spirit and no final assessment order has been issued by the opposite parties before charging the amount in the regular bill, issued on 24.04.2011. The complainant made representation to the opposite party No.3 on 04.04.2011 in which he has alleged that the assessing officer has not checked the connection before issuing the provisional assessment order nor has verified the record of the office; the checking officer has not calculated the connected load on the basis of actual continuous rating of apparatus/appliances connected to the system of the complainant; the checking officer has counted the load of the same power plugs two times and has included the load under the construction building for polytechnic units of the institute which was not in any way connected to the system of the PSPCL. Thereafter, the complainant never received any reply to his representation rather he received regular bill issued on 24.04.2011 wherein the amount of Rs.1,21,140/- was included under the column of sundry charges. The complainant requested the opposite party No.3 to raise a separate demand for the amount demanded in the notice but the opposite party No.3 directed the complainant to make the payment within stipulated period. The complainant also made a request to the opposite party No.3 to get the bill/demand challenged but they flatly refused and warned him either to pay the said amount or to get ready to pay fine of Rs.13,577/- and for disconnection of power supply. The complainant had to make the payment of Rs.1,37,660/- (Rs.16,520/- on account of current bill and Rs.1,21,140/- on account of illegal demand) under compelled circumstances through cheque No.471777 dated 06.05.2011 vide receipt No.21 dated 09.05.2011. The complainant had approached the opposite parties time and again to refund the amount paid by him in excess but the opposite parties refused to accede to the requests of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to refund the amount of Rs.1,21,140/- along with interest, cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the electricity connection of the complainant had been checked by the Addl. S.E. Enforcement, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Bathinda on 25.02.2011 and found that the complainant was using the connected load of 103.64 kw as against the sanctioned load of 64.54 kw. The checking report was prepared at the spot and was signed by the officials of the opposite parties and also by representative of the connection holder who was present at the spot admitting the same to be correct. Accordingly he was issued a provisional assessment order No.634 dated 07.03.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,21,140/- as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the details of the amount demanded, had been mentioned in the said notice itself. The complainant had been informed vide this notice to deposit the said amount within 7 days and asked that in case, he did not agree with the said notice, he could file objections if any within 7 days from the date of notice with the Assistant Executive Engineer, Enforcement, Goniana Mandi, Bathinda. Further, the complainant can be given a proper opportunity of being heard within 15 days but after the expiry of 15 days, he had filed certain objections vide letter dated 04.04.2011 which could not be entertained as the same were filed beyond the period of 7 days and were declined by the designated authority. Accordingly, he was informed about the same vide memo No.2429 dated 15.07.2011 as such the amount demanded vide provisional assessment order became final and the complainant had deposited the same with the opposite parties admitting the same to be correct. On merits, the opposite parties have pleaded that the complainant had been using the said connection for commercial purposes to earn huge profits from the society and for individual benefits.
3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The complainant had received a Provisional Assessment Order No.634 dated 07.03.2011 issued by the opposite party No.3 for a sum of Rs.1,21,140/- on the basis of checking dated 25.02.2011 on account of compensation for alleged unauthorized load of electricity. The said Provisional Assessment Order issued by the opposite party No.3 u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorized load, does not fall u/s 126. No final order of assessment has been issued by the opposite parties before charging the amount in the regular bill, issued on 24.04.2011. The complainant made representation to the opposite party No.3 on 04.04.2011 by hand on the grounds that the Assessing Officer has not checked the connection before issuing the provisional assessment order nor has verified the record of the office; the checking officer has not calculated the connected load on the basis of actual continuous rating of apparatus/appliances connected to the system of the complainant; the Checking Officer has counted the load of the same power plugs two times, one time as the load of power plug and the load of appliances connected there on for the second time and has included the load under the construction building for polytechnic units of the institute which was not connected to the system of the opposite parties and has also included the load of appliances used by the workers of the contractor of building under construction which was not connected to the system of the complainant and was being fed from Generator of the contractor. The complainant has further submitted that he has never received the reply of his representation dated 04.04.2011. the complainant received a regular bill issued on 24.04.2011 wherein the demanded amount of Rs.1,21,140/- was included under the sundry charges by the opposite party No.3 and Rs.13,577/- as fine/surcharge. The complainant has further submitted that the opposite parties threatened him to disconnect his electric supply without any further notice in case, the payment of full and final amount of bill including illegal demand of Rs.1,21,140/- is not paid upto 09.05.2011. The complainant had paid the amount of Rs.1,37,660/- (Rs.16,520/- on account of current bill and Rs.1,21,140/- on account of demand amount) vide cheque No.471777 dated 06.05.2011, receipt No.21 dated 09.05.2011. The complainant had requested verbally as well as in written on 09.05.2011 and 11.07.2011 to resolve the matter but the opposite party No.3 has refused to refund the excess amount, paid by the complainant.
6. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant's connection at his premises, had been checked by the Addl. S.E. Enforcement, Bathinda on 25.02.2011 and on checking, it was found that he was using the connected load of 103.64 kw as against the sanctioned load of 64.54 kw. A detailed checking report was prepared at the spot and was signed by the officials of the opposite parties and also by representative of the connection holder, admitting the same to be correct. This act of the complainant amounted to unauthorized use of electricity as such he had been issued a Provisional Assessment Order No.634 dated 07.03.2011 to deposit Rs.1,21,140/- which has been calculated u/s 126 of the Electricity Act. The complainant was informed to deposit the above mentioned amount or to file objections, if any, within 7 days. After expiry of 15 days, the complainant filed certain objections vide letter dated 04.04.2011 which could not be entertained as the same were filed beyond the period of 7 days and declined by the Designated Authority. The complainant had been duly informed about the same vide memo No.2429 dated 15.07.2011. The complainant had failed to file the objections within stipulated period as such the amount demanded through Provisional Assessment Order became final and he had deposited the same with the opposite parties. The opposite parties have further submitted that the complainant had been using the said connection for commercial purposes to earn huge profits from the society i.e. Aklia Education Society and had been using the said connection for individual benefits. He is not paying the bills regularly as he has been using the connected load 103.64 kw as against the sanctioned load of 64.54 kw. The connected load has been calculated on the basis of actual continuous rating of apparatus/appliance connected to the system of the complainant and as per rules of the opposite parties. The complainant has never been constrained to make the payment as alleged by him rather he had deposited the amount voluntarily to the opposite parties.
7. The checking report dated 25.02.2011 Ex.C-3 reveals that the working of the meter was checked on ERS. On checking, it was found that the meter was working within prescribed limits. The load recorded on the spot, was 103.64 kw as against the sanctioned load of 64.54 kw. This checking report was duly signed by the representative of the complainant and officials of the opposite parties.
8. The complainant had filed objections vide letter dated 04.04.2011 whereas the Provisional Assessment Order has been issued to the complainant vide Ex.C-2 on 07.03.2011 which was duly received by Bhagwan Singh the representative of the complainant on 15.03.2011 in which it has been clearly mentioned that the complainant should either deposit the demanded amount or to file the objections within 7 days and the opposite parties will provide an opportunity of being heard to the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of objections but the complainant had written a letter on 04.04.2011 which is beyond the period mentioned in the Provisional Assessment Order. The complainant had failed to file objections within stipulated period and to pay the demanded amount.
9. A perusal of bill Ex.C-5 shows that the sanctioned load of the complainant is 64.54 kw. The complainant has submitted that the Checking Officer has calculated the load of the same power plugs two times, one time as the load of power plug and the load of appliances connected for the second time and has also included the load under the construction building for polytechnic units of the institute which was not connected to the system of the opposite parties and has also included the load of appliances used by the workers of the contractor of building under construction which was not connected to the electricity connection of the complainant but the complainant has failed to produce any evidence regarding the allegations that the opposite parties have calculated the plugs as well as electricity appliances or any document to prove his averments that the construction work and appliances being used for construction work were fed from the Generator, are also included by the opposite parties in the connected load.
10. The complainant had deposited the amount of bill including the amount of Rs.1,21,140/- on account of checking, being raised on account of excess load. He had written a letter dated 07.03.2011 to refund the amount of provisional order of assessment. The complainant has also produced on file letters dated 09.05.2011 Ex.C-7 and dated 11.07.2011 Ex.C-8, these letters are duly received by the opposite parties. In these letters, he has specifically mentioned that he has deposited the amount under protest.
11. The complainant has placed on file a receipt dated 31.03.2005 Ex.C-12 of Rs.64,950/- for extension of load but nothing has been mentioned that how much load was increased. The complainant has also placed on file Ex.C-13 which shows that the amount of Rs.27,350/- was deposited on 18.06.2009 on account of extended load but again no details of the load have been produced on file by the complainant. Ex.C-14 is a receipt dated 12.08.2009 for Rs.72,880/-, on this receipt, it has been mentioned that the amount was deposited on account of theft that means, earlier also the complainant was found using the electricity unauthorizedly. The complainant has also not produced on file any other bill except Ex.C-5 or any bill prior to it, to prove that its load has been extended.
12. Moreover, no record has been placed on file by the complainant to prove his version that the load was wrongly calculated or he has been carrying on the construction work and using the machines relating to the construction on Generator, not on his electricity connection.
13. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
18-01-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
