Order dictated by:
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
- Jaspal complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant is using the electric connection bearing account No. C141B430263N (DS tariff) which has been installed at his residential premises. Earlier the load of the connection of the complainant is 1 KW and it falls under EWS category i.e. Economic Weaker Section in which as per the Government notification and the supply code of the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to 300 units bi-monthly. On 16.6.2011 the electric connection of the complainant was checked by the official of the opposite party , who directed the complainant to enhance the load and as per the direction of the opposite party, the complainant deposited Rs. 1510/- vide receipt No. D-38983/283. Accordingly, the opposite party enhanced the load of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant has been paying the regular electricity bills and nothing is due against the complainant except the impugned demand. The complainant was surprised to receive the electricity bill dated 17.8.2016 for Rs. 59,410/- in which the opposite party had wrongly and illegally added an amount of Rs. 51,375/- under the head sundry charges without disclosing the details thereof. On receipt of the said bill, complainant approached the officials of the opposite party for the correction of the bill, but the officials of the opposite party did not care to listen to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention over here that as per circular of the board issued vide memo No. 3914/4555/DB-100L dated 12.1.2007 as well as circular No. 10/2009, the opposite party had no right to add any amount of arrears in the bill except the current consumption charges. But despite this circular, the opposite party has illegally added the amount in the bill. Before issuing the impugned bill, the opposite party had neither issued any show cause notice nor the opposite party afforded any personal hearing to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
- Opposite party be directed to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs. 51,375/- raised vide bill dated 17.8.2016 or in the alternative the same may be set-aside ;
- Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the electric connection bearing account No. IB 43/263 is in the name of the complainant having sanctioned load of 3 KW under DS tariff. Previously the sanctioned load of the connection was 1 KW. No checking was taken place on 16.6.2011. The complainant got extended his load from 1 KW to 3 KW since 16.6.2011 by depositing Rs. 1510/- vide receipt No. 288/D-38983. On 5.5.2016 surprise checking was conducted by Er. Manjinder Singh, SDO Islamabad Sub Division, PSPCL, Amritsar alongwith staff, who vide their checking report dated 5.5.2016 reported as under:-
“During the checking , consumer showed BA 16 reeipt No. 288/D-38983 dated 16.6.3011 which showed the extension of load from 1 KW to 3 KW and Rs. 1510/- had been deposited. But uptil now the load of the consumer is coming on the bill 1 KW under WSD tariff. By extending load of the consumer, the account of the consumer be prepared as per rules and regulations of the deparment”.
On the basis of checking report memo No. 1272 dated 22.6.2016 issued from AEE (Comm.) Civil Lines Division, PSPCL, Amritsar to complainant at his address by speed posrt to deposit Rs. 56,500/- on account of charging of normal tariff from 3/2011 to 4/2016 instead of WSD tariff. On the basis of memo No. 1272 dated 22.6.2016, the consumer admitted the same to be correct approached the opposite party for granting three installments of the alleged amount and the same was granted alongwith current bill i.e. first installment of Rs. 17,125/- on 19.8.16, second on 19.9.2016 and third on 19.10.2016. The bill dated 17.8.2016 is prepared as per rules and regulations of the PSPC Ltd. Moreover, memo No. 3914 is not issued by the board. There is a concession upto 1 KW for economically weaker section but the complainant has himself extended the load from 1 KW to 3 KW. The opposite party legally charged the amount as per the sanctioned load of the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Saurabh Sharma,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of receipt Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Manohar Singh,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of sh.Ajay Pal Singh, SDO Commercial Ex.OP1, copy of checking report dated 5.5.2016 Ex,.OP2, copy of memo No. 1272 dated 22.6.2016 Ex.OP3, copy of representation of the complainant dated 19.8.2016 for installments Ex.OP4, copy of receipt of speed post dated 24.6.2016 of memo No. 1272 dated 22.6.2016 Ex.OP5, copy of bill dated 2.4.2016 to 19.7.2016 Ex.OP6, copy of sundry order No. 32/149/116 Ex.OP7, copy of receipt No. 283/38983 dated 16.11.2016 Ex.OP8, cop of order of this Forum dated 14.3.2014 Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. From the record pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant is holder of electric connection bearing account No. C141B430263N (DS tariff) which has been installed at his residential premises. Earlier the load of the connection of the complainant is 1 KW and it falls under EWS category i.e. Economic Weaker Section in which as per the Government notification and the supply code of the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to 300 units bi-monthly. On 16.6.2011 the electric connection of the complainant was checked by the official of the opposite party , who directed the complainant to enhance the load and as per the direction of the opposite party, the complainant deposited Rs. 1510/- vide receipt No. D-38983/283. Accordingly, the opposite party enhanced the load of the complainant. The complainant was surprised to receive the electricity bill dated 17.8.2016 for Rs. 59,410/- in which the opposite party had wrongly and illegally added an amount of Rs. 51,375/- under the head sundry charges without disclosing the details thereof. On receipt of the said bill, complainant approached the officials of the opposite party for the correction of the bill, but the officials of the opposite party did not care to listen to the complainant. It has been alleged by the complainant that before issuing the impugned bill, the opposite party had neither issued any show cause notice nor the opposite party afforded any personal hearing to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that that the electric connection bearing account No. IB 43/263 is in the name of the complainant having sanctioned load of 3 KW under DS tariff. Previously the sanctioned load of the connection was 1 KW. The complainant got extended his load from 1 KW to 3 KW since 16.6.2011 by depositing Rs. 1510/- vide receipt No. 288/D-38983. It was submitted that on 5.5.2016 surprise checking was conducted by Er. Manjinder Singh, SDO Islamabad Sub Division, PSPCL, Amritsar alongwith staff, who vide their checking report dated 5.5.2016 reported that the site of the complainant was checked and it was found that the complainant has deposited Rs. 1510/- for getting his load extended from 1 KW to 3 KW. But still in the bills the load has been shown as 1 KW under WSD tariff and it was reported that by extending load of the consumer, the account of the consumer be prepared as per rules and regulations of the deparment. Copy of checking report is Ex.OP2 on record. On the basis of checking report memo No. 1272 dated 22.6.2016 issued from AEE (Comm.) Civil Lines Division, PSPCL, Amritsar to complainant at his address by speed posrt to deposit Rs. 56,500/- on account of charging of normal tariff from 3/2011 to 4/2016 instead of WSD tariff. Copy of memo No 1272 dated 22.6.2016 is Ex.OP3 on record . Copy of postal receipt accounts for Ex.OP5. It was further submitted that on the basis of memo No. 1272 dated 22.6.2016, the consumer admitted the demand to be correct approached the opposite party and filed a representation for granting three installments of the alleged amount . Copy of representation is Ex.OP4 on record. The same was granted alongwith current bill i.e. first installment of Rs. 17,125/- on 19.8.16, second on 19.9.2016 and third on 19.10.2016. The bill dated 17.8.2016 is prepared as per rules and regulations of the PSPC Ltd.. 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, it is clear that complainant is the consumer of the opposite party having connection No. C141B430263N (DS tariff) with sanctioned load of 1 KW. The complainant himself got increased his load from 1 KW to 3 KW by depositing Rs. 1510/- vide receipt No. D-38983/283. However, when the said connection of the complainant was checked by the opposite party on 5.5.2016 by Er. Manjinder Singh exbt.OP2 , who found that his load has been shown as 1 KW in the bills, whereas the complainant himself got extended his load from 1 KW to 3 KW on 16.6.2011, copy of receipt for extension of load to 3 KW is Ex.C-3 on record. Accordingly opposite party issued notice/memo bearing No. 1272 dated 22.6.2016 to deposit Rs. 56500/- to the complainant . The complainant moved representation Ex.OP4 to the opposite party for granting three installments of the alleged amount which was granted by the opposite party alongwith current bill i.e. first installment of Rs. 17,125/- on 19.8.16, second on 19.9.2016 and third on 19.10.2016 and the same was granted on the representation filed by the complainant for grant of three installments Ex.OP4. But the complainant has failed to pay even a single installment. As such the opposite party has added the said amount in the bill dated 19.7.2016 under the head sundry charges . But the complainant did not pay this bill. As such the said demand was forwarded in the next bill dated 17.8.2016 under the head sundry charges to the tune of Rs,. 51375/-. As the opposite party has duly served notice/memo Ex.OP3 before raising the said demand in the current consumption bill dated 17.8.2016. As the load of the complainant was got increased from 1 KW to 3 KW by the complainant by depositing fee of Rs. 1510/- on 16.6.2011 vide Ex.C-3 but while checking by Er. Manjinder Singh on 5.5.2016, the bills shows the load 1 KW instead of 3 KW. As such the account of the complainant was checked and the bill for the period from 16.6.2011 to 5.5.2016 for the difference of load from 1 KW to 3 KW was prepared and the complainant was duly served with notice Ex. OP3 for the payment of Rs. 56500/-. But when the complainant failed to pay the said demand, the same was added in the current consumption bill of the complainant under the head sundry charges. As such the action of the opposite party in demanding the charges for the difference in load from 1 KW to 3 KW for the period from 16.6.2011 when the load was got increased by the complainant till the checking by Er. Manjinder Singh on 5.5.2016 , is legal and there is no illegality in charging the said demand from the complainant.
9. Consequently we hold that there is no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 3.8.2017
