Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/44

Baljeet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

31 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

                                                                       C.C. No :                    44 of 2020

          Date of Institution :    17.02.2020                                                              

                                                                      Date of Decision :      31.01.2024

Baljeet Kaur aged about 50 years wife of Jasveer Singh, r/o Near Thakurdwara, Mohalla Talab, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, DS City,  Sub Division, PSPCL, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, under Section 35 of the C. P. Act 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Kiranjit Kaur Arora, President,

Sh Vishavkant Garg, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

cc no. 44 of 2020

ORDER

 (Vishav Kant Garg, Member)

                                          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 the bill dated 16.10.2019 for Rs.1,15,670/- in which illegal demand of  sundry charges of Rs.98,797/- is raised and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she is having domestic supply electric connection bearing a/c no 3005055439  running in her premises and she has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards her on account of consumption charges. It is contended that complainant received a bill dated 21.08.2019 for the period from 18.06.2019 to 21.08.2019 for Rs.11,240/-. Complainant paid part payment of Rs.5000/-for same on 16.10.2019. She again received bill dated 16.10.2019 for Rs.1,15,670/- for the period from 21.08.2019 to

 

cc no. 44 of 2020

16.10.2019 for 517 units and in this bill they charged Rs.98,797/-as sundry charges without any notice. Demand raised by OPs for sundry charges and arrears through bill in question is quite illegal and unlawful and complainant is not liable to pay the same. It is further contended that these charges are raised without giving any prior notice or detail thereof. On receiving the bill containing sundry charges, complainant approached Ops and requested them to withdraw the excessive demand of sundry charges and arrears, but they did not pay any heed to hear his requests and they flatly refused to correct the bill. OP-2  rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and arrears and prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

 

cc no. 44 of 2020

3                                                         Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 18.02.2020, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                            On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties appeared in the Commission through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that right bill is sent to complainant and amount charged therein is still and recoverable from complainant. It is brought before the Commission that  earlier also, one connection was installed over there in the name of Amrik Singh against which Rs.98,798.60 were outstanding  and it was disconnected due to non payment of bills and

cc no. 44 of 2020

thereafter, complainant got installed present connection over there and therefore, defaulting amount was added in the account of complainant and is done as per rules and regulations of the OPs.  Complainant was duly informed about it and he knew about amount outstanding against said connection. It is averred that amount charged is due towards complainant and he is liable to pay the same. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint 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 6 and closed the same.

6                                      To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar, SDO, PSPCL, City Sub Division, Faridkot Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to 5 and closed the same on  behalf of OPs.

 

 

cc no. 44 of 2020

7                                     We have heard the ld counsel for complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                                                           From the careful perusal of documents and evidence placed on record and after going through the arguments advanced by complainant counsel, it is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant is having  electric connection issued by Ops and he is the consumer of OPs and he has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill for the period from 21.08.2019 to 16.10.2019 for Rs.1,15,670/-in which Rs.98,797/-were charged as sundry charges, which is too much excessive and complainant is not liable to pay the same. It is further contended that these charges are raised without giving any prior notice or detail thereof. On receiving the bill containing sundry charges, complainant approached Ops and requested them to withdraw the excessive demand of sundry charges, but OP-2 flatly refused to correct the bill, rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, which

cc no. 44 of 2020

amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides main relief. He has prayed for accepting the complaint.

9                                              The grievance of complainant is that amount of Rs.1,15,670/- raised by Ops vide bill dated 16.10.2019 is highly excessive, illegal and is unlawful as nothing is due towards her. On the other hand stand taken by OPs is that earlier, one connection was installed over these premises in the name of Amrik Singh against which Rs.98,798.60 were outstanding and it was disconnected due to non payment of bills and thereafter, complainant got installed present connection over there and therefore, defaulting amount was added in the account of complainant and is done as per rules and regulations of the OPs and complainant is liable to pay the same.

 

cc no. 44 of 2020

10                                       The Ld Counsel for complainant argued that without giving separate notice or bill giving detail of the amount charged, the OPs can not claim this amount from complainant and in the present case, the OPs did not issue any prior notice or bill for the amount raised by them.

11                                        The Ld Counsel for complainant produced copy of circular dated 03.08.2022 issued by the office of Chief Engineer/Commercial, PSPCL, The Mall, Patiala vide which outstanding dues of all consumers have been waived off till 31.12.2021. This document clearly reveals the fact that all electricity bills of domestic supply consumers issued uptil 31.12.2021 and which have not been paid till 30.06.2022 stand waived off. It is noticed that bill challenged by complainant has been issued on 06.10.2019 and falls within the provisions of this circular dated 03.08.2022. As electricity meter connection in question is also domestic supply connection and therefore, keeping in view the guidelines issued under circular dated 03.08.2022, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to waive off the outstanding charges levelled vide impugned  bill issued by them on 16.10.2019 that contained arrears of

cc no. 44 of 2020

Rs.98,797/-. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days of receipt of the copy of this order.

12                   Complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

13                   Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission :

Dated: 31.01.2024             

 

 

                        Memebr                    President

 (Vishavkant Garg)         (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)