BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.414-14

Date of Institution:01-08-2014

Date of Decision:05-03-2015

Hardev Singh son of S.Ajit Singh age about 52 years, resident of H.No.39, Jaspal Nagar, GaliNo.2, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through XEN, Gate Hakima, Amritsar.
2. SDO/ Technical, The Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,  Sultanwind Sub Division, Amritsar.   

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.G.S.Nagra, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.B.S.Rajput, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Hardev Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that an electric connection bearing Account No.C37SW080332K was installed by the Opposite Parties in the name of Ajit Singh father of the complainant with the sanctioned load of 2 KW under domestic category. Sh.Ajit Singh father of the complainant has since expired and the complainant being as beneficiary using the said connection and has been paying all the bills raised by the Opposite Parties without committing any default. Complainant alleges that in the month of June, 2012 the meter of the complainant become defected and he made a request to the Opposite Parties to change the same. After checking of the meter, the officials of the Opposite Parties declared  the meter as dead stop and instructed the department to issue the MCO to change the meter in question. The Opposite Parties thereafter issued the bills to the complainant on average basis with remarks ‘D’ code and the complainant since then making the payments of the bills issued by the Opposite Parties on average basis. The consumption of the complainant was only 200-300 units which costs Rs.1500/- to Rs.2500/-.  The complainant in the month of July, 2014 received a bill bearing No. 52 dated 19.7.2014 with the total bill amount of Rs.68860/- which include Rs.65419- as sundry charges and allowance without any explanation and detail and without mentioning on what account the said amount is credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties and requested them that as the meter was defected, as declared by the officials of the Opposite Parties and the bills were being paid on average basis, then on what basis the said bill has been made by the Opposite Parties, but to no affect. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the amount claimed in the bill dated 19.7.2014 and correct the bill of the complainant accordingly and also not to disconnect the electric meter installed by the Opposite Parties in the premises of the complainant. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that in the month of June, 2012 the meter of the complainant become defected and in this regard, the Opposite Parties issued MCO dated 27.6.2012 vide request No.522413 which is duly effected on 23.4.2013 and particular of the old meter is mentioned in the said MCO and thereafter the Opposite Parties issued a bill for the months of July 2012, September 2012, November 2012 and January, 2013, March, 2013 on average basis. The Opposite Parties issued bill dated 19.7.2014 to the complainant for Rs.68860/- which include Rs.65419/- as sundry charges. Said amount has been charged by the Audit Party of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and reported that difference has been charged to the complainant. The last reading which is clearly shown in the MCO dated 27.6.2012 was 24952 and the complainant has gave a bill on reading 13841, so the difference has been charged 11111=2222 units for two months. All the bills which are paid by the complainant to the Opposite Parties on average basis have been less from the total amount and not chargeable amount is Rs. 65419/-, which the Opposite Parties have rightly charged from the complainant.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Tejinder Pal Singh, AEE Ex.OP1  alongwith documents Ex.OP2 Ex.OP3  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties having electric connection bearing Account No.C37SW080332K with the sanctioned load of 2 KW under domestic category. On 6.6.2012 the meter of the complainant became defective and he reported the matter to the Opposite Parties. Resultantly, the officials of the Opposite Parties visited the spot on 11.6.2012 and checked the meter and submitted their report Ex.C2 which shows that the meter is dead. They recommended for the change of the meter. Resultantly, the MCO Ex.OP2 dated 27.6.2012 was issued, but due to non availability of the meter, the same could not be changed and the MCO could be made effective on 23.4.2013 and during this period from June, 2012 to April, 2013 the bills were issued to the complainant on average basis with ‘D’ code. The audit party of the Opposite Parties overhauled the account of the complainant vide their report Ex.OP3 and they recommended that difference has to be charged from the complainant. The last reading of the meter as per the MCO dated 27.6.2012 (made effective on 23.4.2013)  was 24952  whereas the complainant was charged upto the reading 13841. As such, the complainant was to be charged for 11,111 units after adjusting the amount of the bills already paid by the complainant on average basis. So, the Opposite Parties claimed Rs. 65419/- as sundry charges from the complainant vide bill Ex.C3 directly. However, the Opposite Parties could not charge this amount from the complainant in the current electricity consumption bill without issuing separate prior detailed notice as per regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party. It has been held by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case PSEB Vs. Hardeep Singh  2010(2) CLT 259 that where the payment of Rs.27501/- was not raised by the appellant through a separate detailed notice as required by Regulation 124.1 and added it in the bill in dispute as sundry charges, there is violation  of the regulation of the Opposite Party. However, the appellant is at liberty to raise fresh demand of the amount in dispute and can charge the same from the complainant by following proper procedure. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case Ishar Singli Vs. PSEB 2011 (2) CLT page 420. In the present case also, the Opposite Parties have directly charged this amount from the complainant in the current electric consumption bill Ex.C3 without serving prior notice  and giving the complainant an opportunity to file the objections, if any,  i.e. without giving  prior opportunity of being heard to the complainant. Not only this, the copy of audit party report dated 31.3.2014 Ex.OP3  was also not supplied to the complainant and the Opposite Parties charged this amount of Rs.65419/- from the complainant as sundry charges in the current consumption charges bill Ex.C3 dated 19.7.2014
7. Consequently, this demand of Rs. 65419/- raised by the Opposite Parties from the complainant under the head ‘sundry charges’ vide bill Ex.C3 dated 19.7.2014 is not sustainable and as such, the same is hereby set aside. However, the Opposite Parties are at liberty to raise this demand afresh from the complainant after following proper procedure as laid down under regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 05-03-2015.                                                 

hrg