Punjab

Hoshiarpur

CC/14/175

Baldev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. G.S. Rehill

19 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOSHIARPUR
(3RD FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HOSHIARPUR)
                                                  C.C. No.  175/05.08.2014
                                                  Decided on : 19.3.2015
Baldev Singh aged 56 years S/o.Faqir  Singh R/o VPO Dagana Kallan Hoshiarpur
                                                                                                            Complainant        

            vs.

1.PSPCL, the Mall Patiala,  through its Managing Director Cum Chairman
2.Superintendent Engineer, PSPCL Hoshiarpur.
3.SDO Sub Urban Division PSPCL Hoshiarpur.
                                    Opposite parties

 Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:    Sh. Naveen Puri, President.
              Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary, Member.
              Mrs. Sushma Handoo,Member. 

Present:      Sh.G.S.Rehill , counsel for the complainant.
             Smt. Unita Uppal, counsel for the OP. 

ORDER 
NAVEEN PURI, PRESIDENT
1.              The complainant has filed the present amended complaint  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director cum Chairman and others (hereinafter referred to as OP, for short) praying for a direction to the OP to issue fresh bill after deleting the amount wrongly added under the head of miscellaneous charges in the electricity bill for the months of March-April, 2014 and in the bill of May-June, 2014 under the head of previous dues and to restrain it from disconnecting the electricity connection bearing AC No. H55CA830313X. The OP be also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. 
2.         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is holder of electricity connection no. H55CA830313X in his name and has been regularly paying the electricity bills issued to him by OP.  The bi-monthly average electricity consumption of the said connection is 200 to 250 units. Further pleaded that OP has issued an  electricity bill for the month of March-April 2014 to the tune of Rs.14,760/- including Rs.13,902/- as miscellaneous charges.  The complainant was never in arrears of any miscellaneous charges. In this regard, the complainant approached the OP No.3 and enquired about the matter, wherein OP assured that the amount wrongly added under miscellaneous charges head will be deleted  but the same were  not deleted and  added  under the head of previous dues in the bill dated 16.6.2014.  The complainant has approached the OP many a times and requested them to withdraw the aforesaid impugned demand, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Hence this complaint.  
3.          On notice, OP filed  joint written statement  taking routine preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; has got  no locus-standi to file the present complaint; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP as the disputed amount is his consumption charges including SOP, ED & octroi etc and as per rules and regulations of power com every consumer is  bound to pay his consumption charges.  On merits, it is submitted that the electricity bill issued for the month of March-April,2014 was to the tune of Rs.14,760/- in which Rs.9,354/- was added as sundry charges. In fact,  an electro mechanical meter was replaced on 28-08-2012 with electronic meter through MCO No. 174/96964 dated 28-08-2012 for shifting out the meters from houses/shops to 20X1 pillar boxes as per scheme of PSPCL.  Accordingly bills were issued  for the relevant period on the basis of  actual  consumption in the same period of the previous year  as the bills were issued on “F” code basis (“F” code means meter number different at site). It is further replied that in the month of February, 2014 during the inspection of revenue record by internal audit party, ledger record of electric bills issued for the period 10/2012 to 6/2013 was checked and short assessment on account of difference of units i.e. actual consumption of units minus units billed was calculated through half margin No. 209 dated 11-02-2014. After verifying the same by the OP, an amount of Rs. 9,354/- was charged through SCA No. 11/70/12 in the bill issued for the period of March-April, 2014. It is further averred that it is wrong  that Rs.9,354/- has been added as miscellaneous charges in the bill for the month of March-April, 2014 of Rs.14,760/- the balance amount of Rs.14,694/- including late payment surcharge included as sundry charges, as the complainant did not pay the same,it was carried forward in the bill issued for the period of May-June, 2014. The amount demanded by the OP is legal and genuine. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  
4.         Both the parties wanted to lead evidence  to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. C-1 and closed the evidence.
5.         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh Nijjar Ex. OP-1, MCO Ex. OP-2, half margin Ex.OP-3, ledgers Ex. OP-4 to Ex. OP-9   and closed the evidence. 
6.         We have heard  learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.
7.          According to the own version of the OP the impugned demand was raised on the basis of objection/advice of the audit party. Counsel for the OP has failed to show if any notice was issued to the consumer before over-hauling his account and demanding the impugned amount from him. In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajji Bai 2009(1)CLT 526 it has been held by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Para 5 of the order states that:
“Admittedly, in this case demand has been made by the opposite parties on the basis of objection raised by the Audit party. The opposite parties have placed on record the documents containing estimate of the additional demand made Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6. It is clear from the material placed on record that the opposite parties have not cared to follow the relevant instructions contained in Para Nos.2 and 3 of the Sales Circular No.27/96 which read as under:
“It is regular feature in the Electricity Board that Audit Parties audit the consumer's account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy  is pointed out by the Audit Party. It is understood that whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party, the SDO concern is required to check  the report but in practice the penalty is imposed without any cross checking by the SDO concerned. Before imposing penalty etc., notice is required to be given to  consumer to explain his position.
“The requirement of law is that proper prescribed procedure is to be followed and before imposing penalty on the consumer notice is required to be issued  to the consumer.  It should be ensured that seven days is given to the consumer  before imposing penalty in such cases”.
The above instructions leave no manner of doubt that the opposite parties were duty bound to supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the above stated requirement which the opposite parties have not complied with in this case”. 
8.          We further draw support from a judgment passed by  Hon'ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh, in a case reported in 2004(1) CPC 567 (PSEB Vs. Kuldip Singh) in para 4 of the order as follows. 
“No notice was given to the complainant by the audit party before giving the report and the report is one sided.  We all, thus of the opinion that OP has no lawful right to recover the amount of Rs.16,140/- and Rs.1640/- from the complainant. The complainant paid the amount only under threat of disconnection. Hence, he is entitled to refund the amount. The point is decided accordingly”.
9.           Moreover, the counsel for the complainant has brought to our notice an instruction no.124.1 of the Punjab State Supply Regulations which is as follows:
124.1 There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some  of the dues relating to previous month/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/Load or Demand Surcharge pointed out by internal Auditor/detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the Board 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/malpractices etc.  In all such cases, separate bills  should be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges should not be clubbed in the current bills of the consumer". 
10.           So, from the aforesaid instruction and from the law laid down in the above cited authorities, it is clear that before over-hauling the account or demanding any amount on account of audit objection, notice is required to be given to the consumer.  In the present case no such notice is proved to have been given to the complainant before overhauling  his account and raising impugned demand on the basis of objections of the audit party. Consequently, the impugned demand  cannot be held to be legal and valid.
11.          In view of the above discussion, complaint is partly accepted and the impugned demand of Rs.9,354/- added in the bills for month of March- April 2014  as sundry charges raised by the OP  vide Ex.OP3 is set-aside. Amount if deposited by the complainant be refunded forthwith besides payment of Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The compliance be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which  Ops shall be liable  to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.12,354/- from the date of orders till realization and  proceedings u/s 27 CPA shall be initiated against the OP. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.
Announced.
19.03.2015
                              (Naveen Puri )
                                                         President 

        (Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary)    (Mrs. Sushma Handoo) 
                Member                             Member 

MK