Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/339

Amar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit singh

06 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        181/339

Date of Institution :  1.08.2011/  

                                  15.11.2016

Date of Decision :     06.02.2017

 

Amar Singh, aged about 58 years, s/o Mohinder Singh, r/o Guru Nanak Nagri, Hari Nau Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman cum Managing Director.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Sub Division, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...OPs   

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

              Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh B S Sandhwan, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                         Present complaint was adjourned as sine die vide order dt 24.01.2012 on the basis of complaint pending in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLA No.35906/2011, which has now been decided and now, it has been restored on application filed by ld counsel for OPs. Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to withdraw their demand for amount of Rs.33,864/- charged as sundry charges in bill dt 15.07.2011 and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses to complainant.

2                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having electric connection bearing a/c no. F 44SP 440260H running in his welding workshop since 1986 and he is paying all the bills regularly and nothing is due towards him against dues of OPs. Complainant received notice dt 8.04.2011 vide which they demanded Rs.2513/-as difference of security and complainant duly paid the same on 23.06.2011, but after that OPs issued another notice dt 20.06.2011 wherein demanded Rs.33,864/-on the basis of alleged checking dt 20.05.2008 alleging that there is no workshop and energy is being consumed for Service Station and Tent House. It is pertinent to mention that complainant has been using the said connection since 1986 for self employment and service stations are run by diesel and not by electricity as electricity supply is not certain due to power cuts. Thereafter, OPs issued bill dt 15.07.2011 in which they added the amount of Rs.33,864/- as sundry charges. On receiving the same, complainant visited the office of OPs and requested them to withdraw the demand for sundry charges, but OP-2 flatly refused to withdraw the aforementioned demand and also threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the demand in question, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Demand raised by Ops is illegal and unlawful and is against the instructions of PSPCL. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. Complainant has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to withdraw the demand for sundry charges and to pay Rs.20,000/-for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

 3                             Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 2.08.2011, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                 On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that OPs have constituted various Disputes Settlement Committees to settle the disputes between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable. It is averred that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and moreover, he was using the said connection for commercial purpose. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service or trade mal practice on the part of OPs. It is admitted that Ops sent the said bill to complainant and complainant was called upon to deposit the amount of sundry charges. It is averred that amount is question is raised on the basis of checking dt 20.05.2008 and during checking it was found that there was no workshop, rather electricity was being supplied to service station and tent house and therefore account of complainant was overhauled for the period from 6/2007 to 5/2008, 6/2008 to 4/2009 and he deposited the amount and now, again the account of complainant is overhauled for the period of 3/2010 to 2/2011 on the basis of checking report by audit party, but complainant did not deposit the amount and it is still due and recoverable from complainant. Checking was done in the presence of complainant and it was prepared on the spot and was duly signed by complainant admitting it to be true. It is asserted that present amount is still due and it is the duty of complainant to deposit this amount as they have played fraud with OPs. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant has not suffered any harassment or financial loss. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                             Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-40 and closed the same.

6                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurdass Ram Er as Ex.R-1 and documents Ex R-2 to 29 and then, closed the evidence.

7                              The ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is having electric connection bearing a/c no. F 44SP 440260H running in his welding workshop since 1986 and he is paying all the bills regularly and nothing is due towards him against dues of OPs. Complainant received notice dt 8.04.2011 vide which they demanded Rs.2513/-as difference of security and complainant duly paid the same on 23.06.2011, but after that OPs issued another notice dt 20.06.2011 wherein demanded Rs.33,864/-on the basis of alleged checking dt 20.05.2008 alleging that there is no workshop and energy is being consumed for Service Station and Tent House. It is pertinent to mention that complainant has been using the said connection since 1986 for self employment and service stations are run by diesel and not by electricity as electricity supply is not certain due to power cuts. Thereafter, OPs issued bill dt 15.07.2011 in which they added the amount of Rs.33,864/-as sundry charges. On receiving the same, complainant visited the office of OPs and requested them to withdraw the demand for sundry charges, but Op-2 flatly refused to withdraw the aforementioned demand and also threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the demand in question, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Demand raised by Ops is illegal and unlawful and is against the instructions of PSPCL. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed that OPs may be directed to withdraw the demand of this amount as sundry charges and also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

8                         To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and there is no deficiency in service or trade mal practice on the part of OPs. It is admitted that Ops sent the said bill to complainant and amount is question is raised on the basis of checking dt 20.05.2008 and during checking it was found that there was no workshop, rather electricity was being supplied to service station and tent house and therefore account of complainant was overhauled for the period from 6/2007 to 5/2008, 6/2008 to 4/2009 and he deposited the amount and now, again the account of complainant is overhauled for the period of 3/2010 to 2/2011 on the basis of checking report by audit party, but complainant did not deposit the amount and it is still due and recoverable from complainant. Checking was done in the presence of complainant and it was prepared on the spot and was duly signed by complainant admitting it to be true. It is asserted that present amount is still due and it is the duty of complainant to deposit this amount as they have played fraud with OPs. The demand of OPs is legal and is as per rules of Ops and they charged this amount correctly. Therefore, the question of withdrawing the said bill does not arise at all and OPs have every right to recover this amount from complainant. The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complainant against the OPs. Ops prayed that complaint may be dismissed with costs.

9                            We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

10                          The case of the complainant is that he has an electric connection, which he is using at this welding workshop for self employment to earn his livelihood and has been regularly paying his bills, but complainant received a notice for difference in security, which he duly paid  vide receipt no 317 and thereafter, he received another bill for Rs.33,864/-as sundry charges on the basis of checking asserting that there is no workshop and electricity is used by complainant for service station and tent house, but as per complainant he has been running his workshop at that place since 1986 and no power supply is being consumed by him for service station or tent house. Demand of sundry charges raised by OPs is illegal and unlawful. In reply, OPs asserted that there is no workshop and electricity is supplied by complainant for service station and tent house. Amount in question is demanded from complainant on the basis of checking report and they have rightly claimed this amount from complainant as sundry charges as per rules and regulations of Ops.

11                           The case of OPs is that on 20.05.2008, the connection of complainant was checked by the officials of Ops and during checking, it was found that electricity from connection in question was being supplied to a Service Station and a Tent House and it was ordered that amount be charged as per tariff applicable and on the basis of checking report. The account of complainant was overhauled for the period from 06/2007 to 05/2008 and complainant deposited that amount. Thereafter, account of complainant overhauled for the period from 06/2008 to 04/2009 on the said report and complainant again deposited that amount. Now, on the basis of same report dt 20.05.2008, account of complainant was overhauled for the period 3/2010 to 2/2011 and amount in question is demanded by Ops from complainant on the basis of checking report. On the other hand, ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant never supplied electricity from connection in question to any Service Station or Tent House. Admittedly, the connection of complainant was checked on 20.05.2008 and after that it was never checked to verify the fact that whether any electricity is supplied to any Service Station or Tent House from the account in dispute or not on the spot and OPs unilaterally overhauled the account of complainant for subsequent period on the basis of checking report dt 20.05.2008 presuming themselves that supply from the connection in dispute is given to Service Station and Tent House without verifying this fact on the spot. We are of considered opinion that OPs again overhauled the account of complainant for the subsequent periods on the basis of checking report dt 20.05.2008 without getting it verified on the spot that whether any power is still continue to be supplied to any Service Station or any Tent House. This act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice.

13                    In the light of above discussion and arguments advanced by parties, we are fully convinced with complainant and he has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs cannot claim the amount of sundry charges from the complainant. OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.33,864/- which is demanded by them from complainant on account of sundry charges. OPs are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.12,000/- deposited by complainant with OPs in compliance of the order dt 2.08.2011 of this Forum in his subsequent bills. OPs are further directed not to disconnect the connection of complainant without prior intimation or notice to him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 06.02.2017     

                                                 Member                  President                                                             (P Singla)               (Ajit Aggarwal)