BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.297-14

Date of Institution:28-05-2014

Date of Decision:20-02-2015 

Smt.Pinki wife of Sarabjit Singh, resident of Village: Tangra, Tehsil: Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Principal Officer, The Mall, Patiala, service through Asstt. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,  Tangra Sub Division,  Amritsar.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.S.K.Sharma, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.N.S.Sandhu, 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 Smt.Pinki under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she has obtained an electric connection bearing Account No.A55GA311425P (EWS Tariff) from Opposite Party, installed  in her premises under tariff for the economical weaker section belonging to SC/ST in which 200 units are given free in bi-monthly bill. Complainant alleges that ever since the installation of the aforesaid electric connection, the complainant has been paying the regular consumption charges as per the bills issued by the Opposite Party and there is no amount of electricity consumption charges outstanding against the complainant pertaining to its captioned connection except the impugned demand assailed in this complaint. The complainant was shocked and surprised to receive the electricity bill dated 26.3.2014 in which the Opposite Party had wrongly and illegally added an amount of Rs. 16,673/- on account of alleged under the head of ‘Sundry Charges’ without disclosing the details thereof. As per the circular of the Corporation/ board, the Opposite Party has 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 alleged amount/ arrears in the bill. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to withdraw the said demand of Rs.16,673/- or in the alternative the said demand of the Opposite Party may be quashed and set aside. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that on 21.1.2014, checking of the aforesaid connection was carried out by Sh.Sukhdev Singh, JE Tangra, Sub Division alongwith other staff and during checking, it was found that in the same building, another electricity connection bearing account No.GA31/316 was installed in the name of Sardara Singh, father-in-law of the complainant with sanctioned load of 0.50 KW under DS category which was permanently disconnected on 21.9.2006 and at the time of disconnection, an amount of Rs.33,346/- was outstanding against the said connection. In the same premises, two connections are installed i.e. one connection bearing Account No.GA31/1518 in the name of  Palwinder Kaur wife of Kulwinder Singh son of Sardara Singh and another connection bearing account No.GA31/1425 was under DS category with sanctioned load of 0.68 KW in the name of present complainant Smt.Pinki wife of Sarabjit Singh son of Sardara Singh. As per rules, the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs. 33,346/- has been transferred in both the aforesaid accounts No.GA31/1518 and account No.GA31/1425 and accordingly a notice/ memo No.147 dated 31.1.2014 has been issued to the present complainant claiming Rs. 16,670/- from her, but the complainant failed to comply with the said notice, therefore, the amount in question has been added in the bill dated 26.3.2014, which is legal and valid and has rightly been added in the consumption bill.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Bachittar Singh SDO Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
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 is clear that the complainant is the consumer vide Account No.A55GA311425P under EWS Tariff as the complainant belongs to SC/ST category under which 200 units are given free in bi-monthly bill. Complainant alleges that she has been making the payment of all the bills of electricity issued by the Opposite Parties regularly without any default. However,  the complainant received the bill dated 26.3.2014 in which the Opposite Party has illegally added an amount of Rs. 16,673/- under the head ‘Sundry Charges’ without disclosing the  details thereof. The complainant approached the Opposite Party for correction of the bill, but the Opposite Party neither corrected the bill nor given the detail of the sundry charges of Rs. 16,673/-.  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 on 21.1.2014, checking of the electric connection  of the complainant  was carried out by Sh.Sukhdev Singh, JE Tangra, Sub Division alongwith other staff and it was found that in the same building, another electricity connection bearing account No.GA31/316 was installed in the name of Sardara Singh, father-in-law of the complainant with sanctioned load of 0.50 KW under DS category which was permanently disconnected on 21.9.2006 and at the time of disconnection, an amount of Rs.33,346/- was outstanding against the said connection. In the same premises, two connections are installed i.e. one connection bearing Account No.GA31/1518 in the name of  Palwinder Kaur wife of Kulwinder Singh and another connection bearing account No.GA31/1425 was under DS category with sanctioned load of 0.68 KW in the name of present complainant Pinki wife of Sarabjit Singh son of Sardara Singh. As per rules, the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs. 33,346/- has been transferred in both the aforesaid accounts No.GA31/1518 and account No.GA31/1425 equally. Accordingly a notice/ memo No.147 dated 31.1.2014 was issued to the present complainant claiming Rs. 16,673/- from her, but the complainant failed to comply with the said notice, therefore, this  amount has been added in the bill dated 26.3.2014 of the complainant. 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 the complainant is consumer of electricity vide account No. No.A55GA311425P under DS category. The complainant belongs to SC/ST category. It is admitted case of both the parties that the complainant has been making the payment of all the consumption bills issued by the Opposite Party regularly.  However, the complainant received bill dated 26.3.2014 Ex.C3 in which the Opposite Party claimed Rs. 16,673/- under the head ‘Sundry Charges’ from the complainant. The Opposite Party has charged this amount from the complainant as per the checking report of JE dated 21.1.2014 Ex.OP2 in which it has been mentioned by the Opposite Party that there was an electric connection bearing account No.GA31/316 installed in the name of Sardara Singh father-in-law of the complainant with sanctioned load of 0.50 KW under DS category which was permanently disconnected on 21.9.2006  and at the time of disconnection, an amount of Rs.33,346/- was outstanding against the said connection. In the same premises, two connections are installed i.e. one connection bearing Account No.GA31/1518 in the name of Palwinder Kaur and another connection bearing account No.GA31/1425 was under DS category with sanctioned load of 0.68 KW in the name of present complainant Pinki wife of Sarabjit Singh son of Sardara Singh. As per rules, the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs. 33,346/- has been transferred in both the aforesaid accounts No.GA31/1518 and account No.GA31/1425 equally.
9. This amount of Rs. 33,346/- against one Sardara Singh was outstanding in account  No.GA31/316 and that electric connection was disconnected on account of non payment of the aforesaid amount on 21.9.2006 as submitted by the Opposite Party in their written version. But no effort was made by the Opposite Party to recover this amount from said Sardara Singh. If said Sardara Singh has expired, from the legal heirs of Sardara Singh. As per the provisions of section 56(2) of Electricity Act, no amount can be charged from the consumer after the expiry of 2 years from the date when the amount became due recoverable from the consumer. There is same provision in Rule 93.2 of the Electricity Supply and Instructions Manual of the Opposite Party. This amount became due against Sardara Singh on 21.9.2006 whereas for the first time, the Opposite Party issued memo bearing No.147 dated 31.1.2014 to the complainant for the recovery of this amount. So, the recovery of this amount is barred by limitation as per section 56(2) of Electricity Act. As such, the Opposite Party can not recover this amount from the complainant.
10. Consequently, we hold that this amount of Rs. 16,673/- claimed by the Opposite Party from the complainant vide bill Ex.C2 under the head ‘Sundry Charges’  is not recoverable being time barred. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed with costs. This amount of Rs. 16,673/- raised by the Opposite Party from the complainant vide bill Ex.C2 dated 26.3.2014 is hereby set aside and quashed. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-. 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: 20-02-2015.                                                (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                  President

                                                                       (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)

                                        Member

                                (Anoop Sharma)

hrg                                                                            Member