DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.292 of 23-06-2011 Decided on 16-09-2011
M/s Pakka Seeds Talwandi Sabo Road, Raman, through its partner Shri Ramesh Kumar, aged about 42 years son of Mohan Lal, Resident of Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its C.M.D./M.D./Chairman. AEE/SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Raman.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. J.D.Nayyar, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding electric connection No. MS 52/58. The complainant applied for new connection from the opposite parties and paid Rs.1,51,803/- through receipt No.279 dated 22.12.2010 and completed all the conditions as required by the opposite parties and there is no complaint against the working of the meter of the complainant. The complainant got a memo No.643 dated 26.04.2011 which was received on 21.06.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,41,914/- from the opposite parties on the basis of audit report. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that no explanation has been given whether this amount is on the basis of theft or excess load; no opportunity to file objections has been provided to the complainant; no report of the said audit report has been sent with the said memo; the complainant was never called by the audit party before charging the said amount; he was never involved in theft of electricity. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to withdraw the said demand but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw the above said memo alongwith cost and compensation. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and admitted that the complainant had applied for electricity connection and he deposited Rs.1,51,803/- for the same and thereafter, he had been released the electricity connection No.MS52/58. The audit party of the opposite parties at the time of checking the record, found that the complainant had been inadvertently charged the lesser amount for release of the electricity connection. As per rules, the complainant had an electricity connection of 43.07 KWS for which he was required to be charged @ Rs.900/- per KW (which is the rate for MS connection as per standard cause data Annexure-A) and the same calculated to the tune of Rs.38,767/-. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the complainant was also required to pay the service connection charges @ 350/- per meter wire. The total wire installed for releasing the connection was 976 meters. He had been charged for 726 meters as according to rules, the complainant is required to pay the charges over and above 250 meters of wire and thus, this amount calculated to the tune of Rs.2,54,100/-. In this way, the complainant was to pay the total amount of Rs.2,92,767/- (which included Rs.38,767/- and Rs.2,54,100/- as mentioned above along with the meter security). After deducting Rs.1,51,803/- out of above mentioned amount of Rs.2,92,767/-, the balance amount of Rs.1,41,164/- was calculated to be recoverable from the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant was issued a memo No.643 dated 26.04.2011, asking him to deposit the said amount of Rs.1,41,164/- but the complainant failed to make the payment of the same. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the correct electricity meter had been installed at the premises of the complainant without any defect. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has applied for new connection from the opposite parties and paid Rs.1,51,803/- through receipt No.279 dated 22.12.2010. The complainant has been issued the connection in the Urban Feeder and the connection was working properly. Thereafter, the complainant has got a memo No.643 dated 26.04.2011, received on 21.06.2011 for the payment of Rs.1,41,914/- on the basis of audit report. Through this letter, the complainant was directed to deposit the above said amount within 15 days, otherwise, the amount would be incorporated in his account. The complainant has challenged the said memo dated 26.04.2011 on various grounds that no detail has been given in the memo that on which ground, the amount of Rs.1,41,914/- has been incorporated; no explanation has been given whether this amount is on the basis of theft or excess load; no opportunity to file objections has been provided to the complainant; no report of the said audit report has been sent with the said memo to the complainant; the complainant was never called by the audit party before charging the alleged amount; the notice is one sided and unilateral and is not binding on the complainant. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant had applied for electricity connection and had deposited Rs.1,51,803/-. The complainant was released the electric connection No. MS 52/58. The audit party of the opposite parties while checking the record, detected that the complainant had been inadvertently charged the lesser amount for release of the electricity connection. According to them, the complainant had an electricity connection of 43.07 KWS for which he was required to be charged @ Rs.900/- per KW (which is the rate for MS connection as per standard cause data Annexure-A). The same calculated to Rs.38,767/-. Besides this, the complainant was also required to pay the service connection charges @ 350/- per meter wire. The total wire installed for releasing the connection was 976 meters. The complainant had been charged for 726 meters as according to rules he is required to pay the charges over and above 250 meters of wire and thus, the amount calculated of Rs.2,54,100/-. In this way, the complainant was to pay the total amount of Rs.2,92,767/- (which included Rs.38,767/- and Rs. 2,54,100/- as mentioned above along with the meter security). After deducting Rs.1,51,803/- out of above mentioned amount of Rs.2,92,767/-, the balance amount of Rs.1,41,164/- was calculated to be recoverable from the complainant. Accordingly, the opposite parties issued a memo No.643 dated 26.04.2011, asking the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.1,41,164/- as detected by the audit team. The amount so raised on account of balance recoverable from as per the report of the audit team and not of theft of electricity and unauthorized use of electricity. 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that no audit report has been sent to the complainant, only the demand notice has been sent to him. 8. The opposite parties have produced Ex.R-5 and they have argued that the complainant has been charged according to the Electricity Supply Code 2007, Part III of Punjab Govt. Gaz. July 27, 2007 (SRVN 5, 1929 SAKA) 9.1.1 For new connections, Domestic, Non-Residential, Industrial and Bulk Supply categories. According to this regulation which is reproduced as under:- “(a) The applicant requesting the Licensee for a new connection under Domestic, Non-Residential, Industrial and Bulk Supply categories will be required to pay per KW/KVA charges as approved by the Commission. Such charges will be payable by any applicant where the load/demand required is upto and including 500 KW/500 KVA and the length of the service line is upto one hundred metres for Domestic & Non-Residential Supply category and two hundred fifty metres for Industrial and Bulk Supply categories. Where the length of the service line exceeds the above prescription for the applied category, the applicant will also pay for the additional expenditure for the extra length on actual basis at the rates approved by the Commission.” 9. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that his case does not fall under the category mentioned under the regulation 9.1.1 rather his connection lies under the category mentioned under regulation No.15.2 and 38.2. To support his version, he has placed on file rules for Service Connection Charges – 'Service Line: 15.2 Release of connection from industrial/Urban Feeder instead of nearest UPS feeder' which is as under:- “Where a prospective industrial consumer opts for an electric connection from an industrial/Urban Feeder instead of nearest UPS feeder, his request be allowed provided he pays the actual cost of such work plus 16% establishment charges or per KW/KVA Service Connection Charges, whichever is higher. However, while working out actual cost with 16% establishment charges, no component of cost of distribution sub-station transformer to be installed shall be charged. 38.2 - (ii) New Connections: (a) All new single phase or three phase prospective consumers (except AP & DS) without any upper load limit shall be required to get the 11 KV line erected by the PSPCL at their cost alongwith 16% establishment charges and they shall be required to install their own transformers. The consumer shall have the option to get the supply metered at 11 KV or at LT. The Industrial consumer shall be metered at 11 KV only. In other cases the consumption shall be enhanced by 3% in case of LT metering to cover transformation losses. While extending single phase or three phase 11 KV line in all cases, it shall be ensured by Sr. Xen/DS that this is not misused by AP tube well consumers. No three phase LT line shall be erected.” 10. The learned counsel for the complainant has specifically argued that he falls under the category of Urban Feeder so the regulation 9.1.1 is not applicable on the complainant. He has further argued that no notice can be sent without audit report. 11. The opposite parties have failed to clarify that under which regulation, the demand notice has been sent to the complainant. The complainant has already deposited the amount of Rs.1,51,803/- to the opposite parties and the opposite parties can charge either according to regulation 15.2 or 38.2. The complainant is unable to understand that how the amount has been charged when he does not fall under the category of 9.1.1. Moreover, it was the duty of concerned official that he should have calculated the amount properly as per rules at the time of issuance of the connection and getting the deposit of amount of Rs.1,51,803/- If at that time, the amount was calculated to the tune of Rs.2,92,767/-, the complainant may or may not have opted for the connection. Thus deficiency in service is on the part of the opposite parties who kept the complainant blind from the exact figure of the recoverable amount. 12. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation and the amount raised through memo no.643 dated 26.04.2011 of Rs.1,41,914/- is hereby quashed and the opposite parties are directed to clarify the complainant under which rule and regulation, his connection be treated to avoid any future discrepancies. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 16-09-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
