Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/1

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPC - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Devi Dass Sharma

28 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No.CC/15/1 of 2.1.2015

                                      Decided on:        28.05.2015

 

Sanjeev Kumar son of Krishan Lal resident of   village Hajimajra, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. The Chairman, Punjab  State Power Corp. Ltd., Head Office, The Mall, Patiala.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division Cantt. Sullar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………….Ops

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Devi Dass Sharma, Advocate

For Ops     :                    Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate         

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he is a consumer of the electricity connection bearing account No.P-27MS270661L. Initially the connected load of the connection of the complainant was 20KV which was subsequently extended to 30KW on 4.4.2014.
2. In the month of April/2014, the complainant received the bill for the period 4.4.2014 to 24.4.2014 for an amount of Rs.4400/-, which was deposited by the complainant with the Ops. In the month of May/2014, the complainant received the bill for the period 4.4.2014 to 22.5.2014 for an amount of Rs.13070/- and the same included Rs.5059/- on account of Power Factor Surcharge. In the bills received by the complainant for the months of June and July,2014, an amount of Rs.3629/- and Rs.3520/- respectively was shown towards the power factor surcharge. On enquiry, it was told by the officials in the office of Op no.2 that the compactor of the consumer was defective but no such defect was ever pointed out as the same compactor is still working.  No notice was ever given by the Ops to the complainant regarding the defect in the compactor.
3. The complainant got a legal notice served upon the Ops through his counsel on 3.2.2014 calling upon them to refund the amount claimed on account of power factor surcharge or to adjust the same in favor of the complainant but to no effect. Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to refund him the amount of the power factor surcharge of Rs.5059/-,Rs.3629/- and Rs.3520/- with interest @12% per annum; to pay him Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment, mental agony as also on account of deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and further to award him Rs.50000/-towards the  legal expenses.
4. On notice, the Ops appeared and filed the written version. It is admitted by the Ops that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops in respect of the electricity connection bearing account No.P-27 MS270661L, installed at his residence. Earlier the category of the connection of the complainant was ‘small power’ and now the category of the same is ‘medium industry supply’  because the load of 21 to  100 KW comes within the medium supply category and the load of the complainant is 30KW.
5. It is also admitted by the Ops that in the month of May,2014, the complainant had received the bill for Rs.13070/- including Rs.5059/- shown towards power factor surcharge. It is denied that the said bill pertained to the period 4.4.2014 to 22.5.2014 and rather the same pertained to the period 24.4.2014 to 22.5.2014. It is also denied by the Ops that in the bills issued for the months of June and July,2014, an amount of Rs.2629/- and Rs.3220/- was shown respectively on account of power factor surcharge. It is denied that on an enquiry made by the complainant, it was told by the officials in the office of Op no.2 that compactor of the consumer was defective. The connection of the complainant is of MS category and in the case of MS category there are 2 readings of the meter, one denotes KWH and the other denotes KVAh and the consumer has to maintain the power factor. The power factor can be calculated after dividing the KWH reading by KVAh reading. As per SII.4 of the appendix to section iv of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual (ESIM), the monthly average factor of the plant and apparatus owned by the consumer shall not be less than 0.90. If the monthly average power factor falls below 0.90, the consumer shall pay on the bill amount surcharge  of 1% for each 0.01 decrease . In the monthly average power factor below 0.90 to 0.80, the surcharge shall be 2% for each 0.01 decrease of monthly average power factory below 0.80%. Power factor of the complainant during the month of May,2014 was 0.06 and similarly the same was 0.59, 0.60 and 0.88 during the months of June, July and August and the amounts were charged for less power factors. It is further averred that in case the monthly power factor exceeds, the thresh hold limit of 0.90 then incentive @ 0.25% for each increase of 0.01 above 0.90 shall be allowed on the bill amount. The power factor can be maintained by installing the shunt capacitor and the same is to be installed by the consumer himself. The Ops have attached the copies of the ledger in respect of the complainant for the period May,2014 to August,2014 as Annexures OP1 to OP4, copy of ESIM as Annexure OP5 and copy of the instructions regarding installation of shunt capacitor as Annexure OP6.
6. It is further the case of the Ops that earlier in the case of MS category, the KWH reading was considered while generating the monthly bill but now in view of circular No.44/2014 issued vide memo No.705/709 dated 27.8.2014, the rates of power factor have been revised and only the KVAH reading will be considered at the time of generating the monthly bill in the case of MS category and power factor will not be considered. The said circular was made applicable w.e.f.1.1.2014 and therefore, the bill of the complainant has been revised w.e.f.1.4.2014 after considering only KVAH reading. The amount of power factor surcharge has been refunded to the complainant and the amount of KVAH reading has been charged and the difference of Rs.1796/- is chargeable from the complainant. At the time of getting the connection, the complainant had signed the application-cum-agreement form having agreed to abide by the rules and regulations of the PSPCL. The Ops have produced copy of the application-cum-agreement form as Annexure OP7,  copy of the circular dated 27.8.2014 as annexure OP8, the copy of the sundry register as annexure OP9 and copy of calculation as annexure OP10.
7. It is averred that the complainant is bound to maintain the power factor and is responsible for installing the capacitor .After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
8. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and his counsel closed the evidence.
9. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Er.Ravi Kumar, SDO Cantt Sub Division of the PSPCL, Patiala alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP10 and closed the evidence.
10. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
11. In view of the evidence lead by the Ops consisting of Ex.OP5, the extract of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, regarding SII.4 pertaining to Power Factor, Ex.OP6, the copy of the Guidelines For Industrial Consumers For Installation, Operation and Maintenance of Shunt Capacitor, Ex.OP8, the copy of Commercial Circular No.44/2014, issued by the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd to all Engineers-in-Chief/Chief Engineer(Distribution) vide memo No.705/709/Tariff/Vol.-5 dated 27.8.2014, regarding the revision of tariff for supply of electricity by the PSPCL to the consumers of the State w.e.f.1.4.2014 whereby the KVAh tariff was made applicable w.e.f. 1^st April,2014, Ex.OP9, the copy of the sundry register, whereby the amount on account of power factor was refunded and the amount on account of KVAh was charged and Ex.OP10, copy of the calculation showing the amount of the KVAh charged and chargeable, ultimately showing the difference of Rs.1796/- chargeable from the consumer, the learned counsel for the complainant did not raise any point on the merits of the complaint and simply submitted that the PSPCL had revised the tariff for supply of electricity w.e.f.1.4.2014 as would appear from the commercial circular No.44/2014 dated 27.8.2014,Ex.OP8, but the despite the complainant having got the Ops served with the legal notice no.3456/DDS dated 3.9.2014 sent through registered post as would appear from the postal receipts, Exs.C5 and C6, no reply was given by the Ops that the power factor was not chargeable from him and that now under the revised tariff, he was liable to be charged as per Commercial Circular No.44/2014 dated 27.8.2014 and rather the Ops themselves complied with the said Commercial Circular No.44/2014 after a lapse of about seven months i.e. in the month of March/2015 as would appear from Ex.OP9, the entry made in the sundry register regarding the electricity connection of the complainant bearing a/c no.MS-27/661. Had the complainant been informed about the position prevailing with regarding to the non chargeability of the power factor surcharge, because of the revision of the tariff, the complainant would not have brought this complaint and that he had to suffer because of the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops to apprise  him about the revision in the tariff made vide Commercial Circular No.44/2014 dated 27.8.2014( copy Ex.R8) and therefore, it was submitted by Sh.Sharma, the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant be suitably compensated because of the litigation thrusted   upon him by the Ops.
12. On the other hand, Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal, the learned counsel for the Ops could not deny the fact that despite Commercial Circular No.44/2014 dated 27.8.2014 having been issued by Op no.1, no action was taken on the basis of the same by Op no.2 till the month March,2015 and therefore, the complainant could not be informed in reply to his legal notice ( Ex.C4 dated 3.9.2010).
13. We have considered the submissions. Whereas the claim of the complainant on merits being not tenable, we are of the considered view that the complainant had to approach this Forum because of the apathetic attitude of the Ops in not having responded to the legal notice, Ex.C4 dated 3.9.2014 got served by the complainant upon the Ops, the same having been sent through registered post,  a fact duly corroborated by the complainant through his sworn affidavit, Ex.CA and the same having not been rebutted by the Ops in the sworn affidavit, Ex.OPA of Er.Ravi Kumar, SDO Cantt Sub Division, PSPCL, Patiala. It was laxity on the part of Op no.2 in not having taken any action on the legal notice Ex.C4 of the complainant that the complainant was compelled to file this complaint. Before the Ops were served with the said legal notice, the Ops were equipped with the Commercial Circular No.44/2014 dated 27.8.2014 and therefore, with the help of the same they could easily inform the complainant that the power factor surcharge realized from him w.e.f. 1.4.2014 was liable to be refunded or adjusted in his account but no such intimation was given by Op no.2 to the complainant. Consequently, he was compelled to file this complaint. We therefore, treat the said act of the Ops to be a deficiency in service, which resulted into the  uncalled for harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant for which the complainant has got to be compensated. This has also become necessary so that the Ops may remain vigilant and     conscious about their obligations towards their consumers because any laxity on their part is bound to affect the consumers adversely and for which they are liable to pay for the same. Accordingly, whereas the complainant is not found entitled to the refund of the power factor surcharge as demanded by him, the same already having been refunded,  the complaint on that count  is dismissed, the same is accepted  with regard to the compensation to be paid by the Ops in respect of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by the complainant because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Ops in not having responded to the legal notice of the complainant as discussed above and on that count we accept the complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.10,000/-, which is inclusive of the costs of the complaint. The order be complied by the Ops within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated: 28.5.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President