BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 584 of 2015
Date of Institution: 18.9.2015
Date of Decision :14.03.2016
Mr. Harkirat Singh, Partner M/s. BDS Traders, I/s Chatiwind Tate, Near Gurdwara Baba Deep Singh Ji, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala service through AEE, Sultanwind Sub Division, Amritsar
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sh.Anil Sharma,Advocate
Quorum:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.
- Present complaint has been filed by Harkirat Singh partner of M/s. BDS Traders under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is having electricity connection bearing account No. C37GT490285Y installed in his small shop for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. According to the complainant he has been making payment of all the bills regularly. However, opposite party issued bill dated 25.6.2015 raising a demand of Rs. 35045/- under the head sundry charges. The complainant approached the opposite party to enquire the details of the said demand and for the rectification of the said demand . In the meanwhile opposite party issued another bill dated 11.9.2015 raising a demand of Rs. 50090/-. The complainant again approached the opposite party but the opposite party instead of rectifying the bill, threatened the complainant that in case he did not make the payment of the said bill, his connection will be disconnected. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party not to demand the alleged amount of Rs. 50090/- raised in bill dated 11.9.2015 and in case any amount deposited from the said impugned demand during the pendency of the present complaint the same be refunded to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of payment till realization. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that in the same premises one electricity connection vide account No. GT49/285 was PDCO for non payment of Rs. 25045/- and according to rules and regulations of the PSPCL, this amount was to be paid by the present owner of the building. In this regard detailed notice vide memo No. 425 dated 16.4.2015 was issued to the complainant to pay this amount. But the complainant refused to sign the said notice. After that this amount was added in the regular electricity bill dated 25.6.2015 as sundry charges according to rules and regulations of the PSPCL. It was denied that opposite party threatened the complainant to disconnect his electricity connection. It was also denied that no prior notice was issued before adding this amount in the regular bill of the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of electricity bills Ex.C-2 and C-3, copy of letter dated 10.7.2015 Ex.C-4.
- Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kumar, AEE Ex.OP1, copy of checking report Ex.OP2, notice Ex.OP3.
- 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 both the parties, it is clear that complainant is the consumer of electricity vide electric connection bearing account No.C37GT490285Y for his shop under NRS category which the complainant is running to earn his livelihood by means of self employment. The complainant submitted that he has been making payment of all the electricity bills issued by the opposite party regularly without any default. However, opposite party issued bill dated 25.6.2015 Ex.C-3 wherein the opposite party charged Rs. 25045/- under head sundry charges without any details. The complainant approached the opposite party for rectification of the bill but the opposite party in the meanwhile issued another bill dated 11.9.2015 Ex.C-2 vide which the opposite party charged Rs. 50090/- under the head sundry charges without any details. The complainant again approached the opposite party but the opposite party instead of rectifying the bill, threatened the complainant for making payment of the bills in question otherwise his electric connection shall be disconnected. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that in the same premises one electricity connection bearing account No. GT 49/285 was made PDCO for non payment of Rs. 25045/- and according to rules and regulations of the opposite party , this amount was to be paid by the present owner of the building. Resultantly notice vide memo No. 425 dated 16.4.2015 Ex.OP3 was issued to the complainant to pay this amount but the complainant refused to sign the notice Ex.OP3. After that this amount was added in the regular current consumption bill of the complainant dated 25.6.2015 as sundry charges .The opposite party never threatened the complainant to disconnect his electric connection. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant is the consumer of electricity vide electric connection bearing account No. C37GT490285Y for running his small shop to earn his livelihood by means of self employment. The opposite party did not deny the averment of the complainant that he had been making payment of all the bills issued by the opposite party regarding consumption of electricity regularly and without any default. The opposite party issued bill dated 25.6.2015 Ex.C-3 in which opposite party charged Rs. 25045/- under head sundry charges. The opposite party submitted that there was another electric connection bearing account No. GT49/285 in the same premises which was PDCO for non payment of Rs. 25045/- and as per report of concerned JE Ex.OP2 this amount was charged to the account of the complainant without any reason without explaining concern or relation of that account holder with the complainant ? Moreover, the opposite party could not explain as to when the aforesaid account was PDCO for non payment of Rs. 25045/- . Further, no PDCO has been placed on record by the opposite party nor the opposite party could explain what was the relation of the owner of that account No. GT 49/285 with the complainant. The complainant is the partner of firm M/s. BDS Traders, I/s Chatiwind Gate, Near Gurdwara Baba Deep Singh Ji, Amritsar whereas the name of the owner of account No. GT49/285 was Sh. Kartar Singh of Khokha Opp.Swaya Singh, O/s Chatiwind Gate. Said Kartar Singh was running khokha, whereas the complainant is running proper firm M/s. BDS Traders I/s Chatiwind Gate, Near Gurdwara Baba Deep Singh Ji,Amritsar. As such the opposite party has failed to prove on record any connection or relation of said Kartar Singh with the complainant or the business of said Kartar Singh with the present firm of the complainant. Moreover the said electric connection was in the khokha, whereas the complainant has electric connection of regular firm in the name of M/s. BDS Traders. Further, opposite party has failed to prove on record service of notice dated 16.4.2015 Ex.OP3 to the complainant on which it has been categorically written that the consumer had refused to sign the notice nor the opposite party examined said person, who allegedly served notice Ex.OP3 to the complainant/consumer nor the opposite party produced any dak register to prove that who was deputed to get this notice served upon the complainant/consumer and in whose presence the complainant or the consumer refused to sign this notice.
9. Consequently we hold that opposite party could not charge this amount of Rs. 25045/- from the complainant without establishing the relation/concern of said Kartar Singh having account No. GT 49/285 with the complainant or whether both the business of Kartar Singh and that of present complainant were in the same premises.
10. Resultantly we hold that demand of Rs. 25045/- raised by the opposite party from the complainant vide bill Ex.C-3 dated 25.6.2015 is not sustainable and the same is hereby set-aside. Not only this in the next bill dated 11.9.2015 Ex.C-2, the opposite party raised demand of Rs. 50090/- under the head sundry charges without any explanation. Even the opposite party failed to explain this reason in the written version also nor the opposite party could explain any reason for charging this amount of Rs. 50090/- in the bill Ex.C-2 under the head sundry charges from the complainant.
11. Consequently we hold that this demand of Rs. 50090/- raised by the opposite party under the head sundry charges in the current consumption bill of the complainant Ex.C-2 without issuing any prior notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard and without following proper procedure as laid down in regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party, is not sustainable and the same is hereby set-aside.
12. Resultantly we allow the complaint with cost and the demand of Rs. 25045/- raised by the opposite party from the complainant in the bill dated 25.6.2015 Ex.C-3 under head sundry charges and the demand of Rs. 50090/- raised by the opposite party vide bill dated 11.9.2015 Ex.C-2 under head sundry charges are hereby set-aside. The opposite party is held liable to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders 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.
14.03.2016 ( Bhupinder Singh) President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
