BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No.CC/10/ 767of 7.9.2010 Decided on: 19.9.2011 Dashmesh Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Saran Patti, Samana through its Principal Balwant Singh son of Sh.Hewala Singh. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., (Power Com) through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala. 2. S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., (Power Com) SARAI PATTI New –old City Samana. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Lachhman Singh , Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.Pawan Puri, Advocate ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT It is the case of the complainant that the electricity connection bearing accountNo.P62CF610300K alongwith electricity meter no.84779 was installed in the name of one Piara Singh. The complainant has been running a school under the name and style of Dashmesh Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Saran Patti, Samana where the aforesaid electricity connection is installed. The complainant has been paying the bills of the electricity regularly. 2. In the bill dated 15.8.2008 issued for Rs.12250/- the status of the meter was disclosed as ‘D’ meaning thereby defective. The complainant requested the ops to replace the meter and accordingly new meter no.877813 was installed. 3. The complainant received the bill( date not given) for an amount of Rs.33730/- including the amount of Rs.2055/- for actual consumption and Rs.31747/- as miscellaneous charges. 4. The complainant made various requests and also wrote a letter to the ops to receive the amount regarding the actual consumption of electricity but the ops failed to rectify the bill and rather threatened to recover the amount. 5. Describing the aforesaid act of the ops to be a deficiency of service, the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to treat the demand of Rs.33730/.- made vide bill dated 13.8.2010 to be illegal and to quash the same; to issue the bill for the actual consumption of the electricity; to pay a sum of Rs.30000/- by way of compensation for the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant at the hands of the ops and further to award him Rs.11000/- as costs of the complaint. 6. On notice, ops appeared and filed their written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia, that the complainant is not a consumer of the ops.The connection was issued in the name of Piara Singh and that the complainant is earning huge profit by running the school and having employed several teachers and workers in the school and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer under the Act. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is averred that the complainant is using the electricity connection un authorizedly., he being not the consumer of the same. It is denied if the complainant has been paying the charges of the electricity regularly. A huge amount is outstanding in respect of the electricity connection in question. 7. It is averred that the office of the ops had been issuing the bills of the electricity on average basis since 2/2008 as the concerned Meter Reader of the Sub Division had put ‘D’ code but actually the meter of the consumer was not defective and was registering the energy being consumed. The meter of the consumer was replaced only on 11.12.2009 vide MCO no.126/69560 dated 21.7.2008. 8. It is further averred that the audit wing of the ops checked the accounts of the consumer on 20.11.2009 alongwith other consumers. In the audit para it was mentioned that the meter was showing the actual consumption in terms of units whereas office was issuing the bills on average basis during the period 2/208 to 4/2009.It was pointed out by the audit wing of the Power Corporation that the amount ofRs.31747/- is recoverable from the consumer after having adjusted the amount paid by the consumer during the aforesaid period of 2/2008 to 4/2009 on average basis. The consumer was informed accordingly and he is liable to make the payment of Rs.31747/- alongwith current charges of electricity bill issued for the bi-monthly. 9. It is also averred that the consumer has not chosen to challenge the meter and therefore, the ops have rightly raised the demand as per the actual consumption of the power shown by the meter. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. 10. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.C1/A his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C18 and the learned counsel for the complainant closed the evidence. 11. On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the sworn affidavit of Mahesh Kumar, Revenue Accountant of op no.2 alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R5 and their evidence was closed by order of the Forum. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record, the parties having failed to file the written arguments. 13. First of all we take up the point as to whether the complainant is a consumer under the Act and he could maintain the complaint. 14. Admittedly the electricity connection in question was issued in the name of Piara Singh, whereas the complaint has been filed by the complainant Dashmesh Khalsa Senior Secondary School, Saran Patti, Samana through its Principal Balwant Singh. It is not explained by the complainant as to what connection the complainant has got with Piara Singh, the holder of the electricity connection in question. 15. It is no where alleged by the complainant that it is using the electricity connection with the consent of Piara Singh. Therefore, we do not find any hesitation in holding that the complainant is not a consumer of the ops qua the Act. 16. Here, it is also important to note that the ops have raised the preliminary objection that the complainant is running the school for profit having employed a number of teachers and workers and therefore also the complainant is not a consumer to be covered by the definition of a ‘consumer’ provided under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.’ Apparently when the complainant is running a school, where the electricity in question is installed for earning profit, the complainant can not be treated a consumer as per the definition of the same given under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. 17. Now coming to the merits of the complaint, it is the case of the complainant that the meter of the electricity connection in question was noted as defective in the bill issued on 15.8.2008 as the meter reader noted the status as ‘D’ i.e. the meter being defective. It is admitted by the complainant that new meter No.877813/- was replaced which according to the ops was replaced on 11.12.2009 vide MCO No.126/69560 dated 21.7.2008. 18. It is the case of the ops that because of the Meter Reader having used ‘D’ code in the bill for August 2008, the charges were being levied on average basis and the same were levied for the period 2/2008 to 4/2009 despite the fact that the meter was registering the consumption and there was no defect in the meter as pointed out by the Audit Wing of the ops, Ex.C2 is the copy of Half Margin dated 20.11.2009 written by the internal audit Cell of the ops to op no.2 having disclosed that on a perusal of the account no.CFR61/0300(NRS) it was found that the consumer was being charged for the period 2/2008 to 4/2009 on average basis because of the Meter Reader having put ‘D’ code in the bill for 2/2008 although the meter was recording the reading and therefore the account of the consumer was being reviewed for the period 2/2008 to 4/2009 as under:- Month Reading Recoverable amount ( New Old ) Consumption SOP ED Oct 2/08 9197 9182 15 683 +7 + 2 4/08 - 9197 3980 17870+1787+398 6/08 - 9197 8/208 13177 9197 10/08 16567 13177 3690 16568+1657+369 12/08 18192 16567 1625 7296 + 730 + 163 2/09 18884 18192 692 3107 + 311 + 69 4/09 19202 18884 425 1908+191+43 109 2 Total 47432 + 4677 + 1044 Amount Realized Earlier ( - ) 19028 + 1902 + 476 28404 + 2775 + 568=31747 19. There is no evidence to have been led by the ops that on the basis of Ex.C2. written by internal audit cell to op no.2, the detail of the amount recoverable from the consumer was provided to it. Straightway the ops have shown the amount of Rs.31747/- as sundry charges for the first time in the bill dated 13.8.2010,Ex.C3 for the period 18.5.2010 to 18.7.2010 besides the current electricity charges. In the case of the citation Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Versus Rajji Bai 2009(1)CLT 526 , the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula made a reference to Sales Circular No.27/96, which provides, “ It is regular feature in the Electricity Board that Audit Parties audit the consumer’s account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party. It is understood that whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party, the SDO concerned is required to check the report but in practice the penalty is imposed without any cross checking by the SDO concerned. Before imposing penalty, etc., notice is required to be given to consumer to explain his position. “The requirement of law is that proper prescribed procedures is to be followed and before imposing penalty on the consumer notice is required to be issued to the consumer. It should be ensured that seven days is given to the consumer before imposing penalty in such cases.” 20. Apparently no notice was issued by the ops to the consumer raising the demand of the amount of Rs.31747/- as shown in Ex.C2 and therefore, it is a violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the same can not be allowed to be recovered. 21. However, as an upshot of our aforesaid discussion, it would appear that the complainant not being a consumer for the reasons recorded above, could not maintain the complaint, and therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed. Pronounced. Dated:19.9.2011 Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member President
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. D.R.Arora, PRESIDENT | , | | 
