DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/350

Date of Institution   : 15.05.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 24.05.2022

 

Sh. Harish Chander prop. of M/s Banarsi Dass Mahajan carrying on business at head Water Work Road, Ram Talai Road, Amritsar. 

                 …Complainant Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through the SDO Ghee Mandi Sub Disvision, Civil Line Division, O/s Hall Gate Amritsar. 

              …Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

Present: Sh. S.K. Sharma Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. B.S. Sachdeva Adv counsel for O.P.

 

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member 

 

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI, MEMBER): 

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Dedressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against the PSPCL (hereinafter referred as opposite party)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained an electric connection bearing account No. 3002878972 having sanctioned load 11.190KW under SP category. The above said connection is used for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. The complainant regularly paying the consumption charges as per bills. It is alleged that the meter of the complainant installed outside his premises and its monthly reading is always taken by the official of the opposite party. The complainant was shocked to receive a memo No. 1082 dated 27.3.2018 claiming an amount of Rs. 14,164/-. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party and showed the bills and its receipt and the opposite party informed the complainant that the above said memo was issued due to the inoperative/defective shunt capacitor installed in his business premises. Moreover, the memo No. 1082 dated 27.3.2018 has been issued by the audit party which they have no right to claim any amount from the consumers. The above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

i)To withdraw the the impugned memo No. 1082 dated 27.3.2018 of Rs. 14,164/-. 

ii)To pay Rs. 10,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.   

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of no cause of action, maintainability, complaint is bad in law, act and conduct, complaint is frivolous and baseless, suppressed of material facts, jurisdiction etc. 

4. On merits, it is submitted that the during checking of the account of the complainant M/s Banarsi Dass Mahajan vide half margin No. 95 dated 5.1.2018 it was found that the monthly power factor of the consumer for a period 16.2.2017 to 7.9.2017 is found below then 0.90 as per the General conditions of tariff. If the monthly power factor falls below 0.90 then the consumer shall pay on the average bill amount a surcharge of 1% for each 0.01 decrease in the monthly power factor below 0.90. The consumer shall be 2% for each 0.01 decrease of monthly power average factor below 0.80. In the present case the monthly power factor of consumer was below 0.80 and show cause notice was regularly issued to the consumer, but of no use. So, as per circular of general conditions consumer is liable to pay surcharge @ 2% for each 0.01 decrease of monthly power average factor below 0.80. The above said memo was issued as per rules. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

5. In order to prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of the memo Ex.C-2, copy of representation Ex.C-3, copy of reply Ex.C-4 and C-5, copy of ESIM Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case of complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Vipan Vig Ex.O.P-1 alongwith documents Ex.O.P-2 to Ex.O.P-4 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. 

8. The complainant has alleged that the complainant obtained an electric connection bearing Account No. 3002878972 under SP category. The complainant is using the said connection for doing job work of Kharaid. The said connection has been used by the complainant with the help of an employee for earning his livelihood by way of self employment. It also stands proved on record that the meter of the complainant was already installed outside his premises and its monthly reading is always taken by Technical Officer of opposite party i.e. JE-1. The complainant was shocked and surprised to receive a memo No. 1082 dated 27.3.2018 claiming an amount of Rs. 14,164/- from the opposite party.  

9. That as per CC No. 26/2016 and ESIM General Condition of Tariff AnnexureII Section 4 S-III-8 “In case shunt capacitors are found to be missing or inoperative or damaged a fifteen days notice shall be issued to the consumer for rectification of the same and setting right the same.  In case defective capacitors are not replaced/rectified within fifteen days of the issue of notice, surcharge and the rate of 20% on bill amount shall be levied for the proceeding two months and it shall continue to be levied till the defective capacitors are replaced/rectified to the satisfaction of the PSPCL. In case the capacitors are found to be of Inadequate rating, the capacitor surcharge shall be levied on pro-rata basis. Moreover, memo No. 1082 dated 27.3.2018 has been issued on the directions of the audit party contained in half margin No. 95 dated 5.1.2018 but as per law the audit party has no right to claim any amount from the consumer.”

10. On the other hand the opposite party alleged that the consumers are required to maintain the PF Ratio at 0.90 and in case said ratio comes out to be less to the prescribed ratio such consumers are liable to pay power factor surcharge and if the said ratio exceeds the prescribed ratio such consumers are entitled incentives/rebate in the bill amount. The bills issued by the department to the consumers including the complainant contained a column in which the power factor ratio is specifically mentioned and as such the complainant was aware of the fact that the power factor is not being maintained by him. However, complainant has nowhere alleged that he had no knowledge about the maintenance of power factor and he had no knowledge about the prescribed ratio of power factor which was required to be maintained by him. The only ground propounded by the complainant in the present complaint is that the opposite party has not issued 15 days notice to the complainant before raising the impugned demand. 

11. From the appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case the only case of the complainant that the opposite party issued memo No. 1082 dated 27.3.2018 for an amount of Rs. 14,164/- on the direction of the audit party vide half margin No. 95 dated 5.1.2018. Copy of memo is Ex.C-2. When on the receipt of said memo the complainant approached the opposite party, the opposite party informed that the memo was issued due to in operative/defective shunt capacitor. The complainant alleged that no separate notice regarding the removal of the defect in the shunt capacitor was received by the complainant which was against the circular of the opposite party vide CC No. 26/2016 and ESIM  (General Condition of Tariff). However, perusal of the file shows that no such 15 days notice was ever issued to the complainant before raising said demand vide memo No. 1082. Rather it stands proved on record that on the representation made by the Association Ex.C-3 to the Chief Engineer, Border Zone PSPCL, Amritsar which was marked to the SDO, Civil Lines, Amritsar and who further wrote a memo No. 1699 dated 28.3.2018 to Assistant Accounts Officer, Mall Audit Party, Civil Lines Division, Amritsar in which it has been requested to AAO to reconsider their decision as the same is beyond the purview of ESIM. Copy of the memo is Ex.C-5. 

12. Reliance has placed upon Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Anr Versus Rajji Bai 2009 (1) CLT-526 wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in para No. 5 of the orders that.-

“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 concern 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.”

13. Further, reliance has been placed upon M/s Kundan Mill Board and Paper Mills and another Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others 2014(2) Civil Court Cases-44 of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein it has been held as under.-

“We may notice that any internal audit objection is only an opinion and cannot be itself a justification for raising of a supplementary or initial bill.”

14. In view of the above discussion and law laid down mentioned above, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to withdraw the memo No. 1082 dated 27.3.2018 for Rs. 14,164/-. Opposite party is also directed to adjust the amount if any deposited by the complainant against the said memo in future bills. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        24th Day of May 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member