BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.542 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 08.11.2019

      Date of Decision: 06.02.2023

Darshan Kumar s/o late Sh. Achru Ram aged about 72 years r/o 143, Mohalla Makhdoompura, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office, The Mall, Patiala, through its CMD.

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub-Division Commercial       Abadpura, Jalandhar City, through its SDO/AEE.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Complainant in Person.

                    Sh. SKS Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had been paying regularly energy consumption bills to the OPs and nothing is due to be paid out of the regular energy consumption bills to the OPs. On 24.10.2019, the OPs delivered a supplementary bill bearing memo no.5213 dated 24.10.2019 to the complainant. As per the contents of the said memo, an amount of Rs.32,133/- was demanded from the complainant on the basis of some checking, which was carried by audit department of the OPs. After receiving the impugned bill, the complainant approached the OP No.2 to know about the reason of charging the impugned amount. To this, the complainant was directed to deposit the impugned in the first instance and afterwards the details of the impugned amount would be revealed to the complainant. The complainant requested the OPs to reveal the exact detail of the alleged checking by the audit department of OPs, so that, the complainant might give his explanation/reply against the impugned demand. To this, the OP No.2 directed the complainant to deposit the impugned charges immediately, otherwise, the supply of electricity to the residence of the complainant would be disconnected. This act of the OPs of raising supplementary bill to the complainant without giving any opportunity to him to make a reply against the impugned charges, is against the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the OPs cannot straight way raise the impugned charges on the basis of the findings of their audit party. This act of the OPs of raising the impugned charges without observing the law on subject and also their threatening to disconnect the supply of electricity to the residence of the complainant, has caused mental harassment to the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to quash the supplementary bill bearing Memo No.5213 dated 24.10.2019 amounting Rs.32,133/-. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed just to harass the OPs. It is further averred that no cause of action arose to the complainant against the answering OPs rather cause of action arises to the OPs against the complainant for dragging he answering OPs in the false, frivolous litigation. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties. The complainant not approached the Commission with the clean hands and intentionally and deliberately concealed the material facts from the Commission. It is pertinent to mention here that as per official record, the meter of the consumer remained burnt from the period of 2/4/2014 to 2/9/2014. The electric meter of the consumer was replaced on 2/9/2014, as per the circulars, rules & regulation of the PSPCL. It is further pertinent to mention here that during the above said period, (when the meter was originate to be burnt), the bills were issued to consumer on average basis. As per the circulars, rules and regulations of the PSPCL, the account of the consumer was overhauled by the Audit Wing and it was noticed that after replacement of meter the consumption of the electricity recorded was very high. It is worthwhile to mention here that during the corresponding period i.e. (7/2014 to 9/2014) the bills were issued on the average basis showing very less consumption, then the actual consumption of the electricity consumed by the consumer. Accordingly the account of the complainant is overhauled on actual consumption basis as detailed below:-

(a)               During the period of 4/7/2014 to 5/8/2014 the average taken against "R" code was just 130 units while actual consumption basis the units to be charged are calculated 3180 units, as such, the difference of 3050 units is to be charged from consumer as observed by the audit wing, while overhauling the account of the consumer.

(b)               During the period of 05/8/2014 to 29/8/2014 the average taken against "R" code was just 89 units, while on actual consumption basis the units to be charged are calculated 750 units as such, the difference of 666 units is to be charged from consumer, as observed by audit wing, while overhauling the account of the consumer.

(c)               During the period of 29/8/2014 to 9/2014 the average taken was just 122 units, while on actual consumption basis the units to be charged are calculated 810 units and difference of 661 units is to be charged from the consumer, as observed by audit wing, while overhauling the account of the consumer.

                   “Hence total difference of 4399 units le. (3050+661+688)      and amount of rupees 32133/- only charged from consumer as     observed by audit wing vide half margin no 30 (sr no:20) dated         30/7/2018”

                   It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable in the present forum. The present complaint has been filed by the consumer, before this Commission with the sole motive, just to put pressure on the OPs, so that the answering OPs will not make the recovery of the outstanding aforesaid amount, which is public money. It is further averred that the complainant has suppressed material facts from this Commission and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. Even the complainant is stopped by his act, conduct, admission and omission from filing the present complaint. On merits, the factum with regard to paying regularly energy consumption bills to the OPs is admitted and it is also admitted that on 24.10.2019, the OPs delivered a supplementary bill bearing memo no.5213 dated 24.10.2019 to the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant very minutely.

6.                The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that he has been paying the energy consumption bills regularly, but on 24.10.2019 he received a supplementary bill and as per the contents of the memo, amount of Rs.32,133/- was demanded from the complainant. The bill has been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-1. The regular bill has been proved by the complainant as Ex.C-2. Perusal of the regular bill shows that the status of the meter is normal and the period of the bill is from 30.09.2019 to 03.11.2019. Thereafter, vide Ex.C-1 on the basis of Audit Report, the amount of Rs.32,133/- have been claimed by the OPs.

7.                The OPs have alleged that the meter of the consumer remained burnt from the period of 02.04.2014 to 02.09.2014 and the same was replaced as per circulars, rules and regulations of PSPCL. During this period, the bills were issued on average basis showing very less consumption and after the replacement of the meter and the Audit Report, the account of the complainant was overhauled on actual consumption and the difference of the units was demanded. The same has been demanded as per the actual consumption. Ex.OP-1 is the detail of the bill issued from 02.04.2014 and the same is on the average basis and these bills have been proved as Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4. Ex.OP-5 is the difference of the consumption of the units during the period 02.05.2018 to 01.09.2018. As per Electricity Supply Instruction Manual 93.1, which reads as under:-

                   “There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed        for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment or demand /     load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the        authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or    due to application of wrong tariff/ multiplication factor or due to           mistake in connection or other irregularities etc. In all such     cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied.  

                   As per this circular, in all the such cases of burnt meter or wrong meter or defective meter, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. In the present case, no separate bill has been issued nor there is any complete details alongwith the letter Ex.C-1 nor there is any report of Audit on the basis of which this amount has been claimed alongwith this letter Ex.C-1. This is merely demand notice of Rs.32,133/-, which itself nowhere shows how this amount of Rs.32,133/- has been claimed and demanded by the OPs. It has been held by the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, in a case, titled as ‘Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & others’, 2016 (2) CLT 429, that ‘Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) Electricity connection Domestic purpose - Issuance of electricity bill by illegality adding sundry charges Complaint partly allowed - Appeal Held, no show cause notice was issued to the complainant before imposing penalty Appellants miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant Provisions of Electricity Act not followed- Deficiency in service proved - Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case- No case made out for interference.’

                   So as per the observation made by the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, show-cause notice is must before making any demand, but in the present case, no show-cause notice was issued nor any audit report was sent and it was held by the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission that on the basis of audit report, which was never served upon the complainant, no penalty can be imposed nor the demand can be made. It was held by the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission that consumer can always ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case. So, the demand made by the OP on the basis of audit report clear cut proves the deficiency in service, so, the same is illegal and the same is hereby set-aside and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

8.                In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the supplementary bill bearing memo no.5213 dated 24.10.2019 amounting to Rs.32,133/- stands quashed. However, if any amount is due towards the complainant, the OPs can proceed as per procedure and law. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon                    Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

06.02.2023                    Member                              President