Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member.

1.       Mr.Prince has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is having electric connection No.C37GT370166M for his small quest house without employing any permanent employee and for earning his livelihood by means of self employment, the complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant is making the payment of all the bills raised by the Opposite Party from time to time and nothing is due towards him. The Opposite Party issued  the bill dated 31.3.2016 wherein the amount of Rs.55,575/- was added  under the head of arrears, the complainant approached the Opposite Party and made representation and the officials of the Opposite Party  marked enquiry on it and assured the complainant that he will be notified about the fate of the said enquiry, meanwhile the Opposite Party  issued another bill dated 4.5.2016 wherein the amount of previous bill was added alongwith the said alleged arrears was added in the current bill, the complainant again approached the Opposite Party , but the Opposite Party  instead of  rectifying the bill threatened the complainant in case he did not make the payment of the said bill, his connection will be disconnected. It is pertinent to mention over here that no prior notice or any detail has been given to the complainant about the said arrears leveled by the Opposite Party  in the current bill of the complainant. It is further pertinent to mention over here that the complainant was issued bills on wrong average basis earlier  and  was subject to payment on  report of ME lab about the defective meter installed and no such report was ever given and correct average as per rules were levied. Said acts of the Opposite Party  in demanding the alleged amount in the current bill without affording any opportunity of being heard from the complainant is an act of deficiency in services, unfair trade practice and mal practices and is not sustainable in the eyes of law  and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant for which the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party be directed not to demand the alleged amount of Rs.55,575/- raised in bill dated 31.3.2016 from the complainant. In case of any amount deposited from the said impugned amount during the pendancy of the present complaint, be allowed to be refunded with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization.

b)      Opposite Party  be directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

c)       Opposite Party be directed to pay the adequate cost of the litigation.

d)      Any other relief to which the complainant is found under the law, equity and justice be also allowed.     

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the  complainant is not a consumer under section 2(i) (d), 2(1) (b) and 2(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is having  electric connection for commercial purposes i.e. NRS. The complainant does not come within the meaning of consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merits, it is mentioned that the complainant has made the payment of bill issued on 23.2.2015 on the reading basis for Rs.5180/-, on dated 5.3.2015. During the period  of 23.2.2015 to 25.5.2015 bills were not paid by the complainant due to ‘D’ code. The bills were generated by computer system as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL. In the month of 3/2015 bill of 1836 units average amounting to Rs.14,709/- were issued in the month of 4/2015 bill of  2398 units average amounting to rs.19170/- was issued. In the month of 5/2015 bill of 2690 units average amounting to Rs.21,696/- was issued. The above total amount comes to Rs.55575/- which were not paid by the complainant  and was carried forward in the arrears column in the bill issued onward and also in the bill dated 31.3.2016 as per complainant. Thereafter, on the application of the complainant, the meter of the above said account was checked and seems to be internal defect. Hence, in nutshell, the complainant has not made the payment for the month of 3/2015, 4/2015 and 5/2015 amounting to Rs.55,575/- and thereafter, bill of the complainant upto 5.7.2016 amounting to Rs.97470/- recoverable from the complainant. Not only this, the challenged meter of the complainant was sent to ME Lab as per the consent of the complainant and the accuracy of the meter found correct and test was found OK within limitation. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of bill dated 31.3.2016 Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Kawalpreet  Singh SDO Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 alongwith  copies of documents Ex.OP2 to 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 evidence on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has contended that  the complainant is making the payment of all the bills raised by the Opposite Party from time to time and nothing is due towards him.  The complainant is having electric connection No.C37GT370166M for his small quest house without employing any permanent employee and for earning his livelihood by means of self employment, the complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant is making the payment of all the bills raised by the Opposite Party from time to time and nothing is due towards him. The Opposite Party issued  the bill dated 31.3.2016 wherein the amount of Rs.55,575/- was added  under the head of arrears, the complainant approached the Opposite Party and made representation and the officials of the Opposite Party  marked enquiry on it and assured the complainant that he will be notified about the fate of the said enquiry, meanwhile the Opposite Party  issued another bill dated 4.5.2016 wherein the amount of previous bill was added alongwith the said alleged arrears was added in the current bill, the complainant again approached the Opposite Party , but the Opposite Party  instead of  rectifying the bill threatened the complainant in case he did not make the payment of the said bill, his connection will be disconnected. It is pertinent to mention over here that no prior notice or any detail has been given to the complainant about the said arrears leveled by the Opposite Party  in the current bill of the complainant.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the  Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that  that the meter of the complainant was found correct as per the report of the ME Lab which was got conducted by the Opposite Party as per the application of the complainant. It is averred that the  complainant has made the payment of bill issued on 23.2.2015 on the reading basis for Rs.5180/-, on dated 5.3.2015. During the period  of 23.2.2015 to 25.5.2015 bills were not paid by the complainant due to ‘D’ code. The bills were generated by computer system as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL. In the month of 3/2015 bill of 1836 units average amounting to Rs.14,709/- were issued in the month of 4/2015 bill of  2398 units average amounting to Rs.19,170/- was issued. In the month of 5/2015 bill of 2690 units average amounting to Rs.21,696/- was issued. The above total amount comes to Rs.55,575/- which were not paid by the complainant  and was carried forward in the arrears column in the bill issued onward and also in the bill dated 31.3.2016 as per complainant. Thereafter, on the application of the complainant, the meter of the above said account was checked and seems to be internal defect. Hence, in nutshell, the complainant has not made the payment for the month of 3/2015, 4/2015 and 5/2015 amounting to Rs.55,575/-, hence the demand raised by the Opposite Party is legal and valid. 

8.       From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that though the Opposite Party has denied being wrong and  incorrect any sundry charges included in the bill dated 31.3.2016. It is arrear of unpaid bill which is not deposited by the complainant to the Opposite Party. But the perusal of the consumption bill Ex.C2 shows that the Opposite Party has added some amount on account of arrears in this bill.  However, the Opposite Party could not charge this amount from the complainant in the current electricity consumption bill without issuing prior detailed notice as per regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party. It has been held by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case PSEB Vs. Hardeep Singh  2010(2) CLT 259 that where the demand was not raised by the appellant through a separate detailed notice as required by Regulation 124.1 and added in the bill in dispute as sundry charges, there is violation  of the regulation of the Opposite Party. However, the appellant is at liberty to raise fresh demand of the amount in dispute and can charge the same from the complainant by following proper procedure. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case Ishar Singli Vs. PSEB 2011 (2) CLT page 420. In the present case also, the Opposite Party has directly charged this amount from the complainant in the current electric consumption bill in dispute without serving prior notice  and giving the complainant an opportunity to file the objections, if any,  i.e. without giving  prior opportunity of being heard to the complainant.

9.       Consequently, this demand of Rs. 55,575/-  raised by the Opposite Party from the complainant under the head ‘sundry charges’ vide bill dated 31.3.2016 is not sustainable and as such, the same is hereby set aside. However, the Opposite Party is at liberty to raise this demand afresh from the complainant after following proper procedure as laid down under regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  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.

Announced in Open Forum