Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/59

Baltej Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

29 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        59

Date of Institution :  24.02.2016

Date of Decision :    29.06.2016

 

Baltej Singh s/o Darshan Singh, r/o Heera Singh Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

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

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Sub Urban Sub Division, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           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 dt 28.01.2016 and deduct the amount of Rs.15,007/- and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having electric connection bearing a/c no. F46KN601260N and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill dt 28.01.2016 for Rs 19,050/- in which Rs 15,007/-were charged as sundry charges without giving any notice and detail and on receiving the same, complainant immediately approached Ops and requested them to withdraw the demand of sundry charges, but OP-2 refused to do so. Complainant also requested them that he is ready to pay actual consumption and current charges of Rs.4,043/-but they denied and threatened him to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount, 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 prayed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation 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 25.02.2016, 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 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 levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that complainant moved an application before the Ops that his meter has been lost and then, new meter was installed at his site vide SJO No. 75/62369 effected on 15.07.2014. It is averred that bill for the month of Sep/14 was charged on average basis for 178 units with ‘F’code i.e meter different at the site. It is further averred that meter was installed with 2 units and reading of this meter was 761 units and thus, bill for 759 units should have been sent instead of 178 units on average basis. Similarly, bill for the month of Nov. /2014 was sent for 172 units on average basis but consumption was for 1201 units and bill for 1201 units should have been sent but the same was sent for 172 units only. Again bill for Jan/2015 was sent for 178 units on average basis, but consumption at the site was for 717 units and thus, bill for 717 units should have been sent, but bill  was sent for 178 units. All this was detected by Audit Party and present amount is charged on account of difference in units already charged and that which were required to be charged. It is further averred that bill was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the said amount but he did not deposit the same. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. 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 to3 and closed the same.

6                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh SDO as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-5 and closed the evidence.

7                               The ld Counsel for complainant vehementally  argued that complainant is having electric connection bearing a/c no. F46KN601260N and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill dt 28.01.2016 for Rs 19,050/- in which Rs 15,007/-were charged as sundry charges and on receiving the same, complainant immediately approached Ops with request to withdraw the demand of sundry charges, but OP-2 refused to do so. Complainant also requested them that he is ready to pay actual consumption and current charges of Rs.4,043/-but they denied and threatened him to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount. Complainant made many requests to OPs to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and requested them to get deposited the current energy charges from the complainant but all in vain. The OPs have no right to demand this amount from complainant as sundry charges. All these acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and due to these acts of OPs, complainant has faced great mental tension, agony and harassment. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith 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. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this case. The Ops have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees and complainant should approach such committees to settle his dispute, so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, they admitted that bill in question is issued by OPs. It is asserted that complainant moved an application before the Ops that his meter has been lost and then, new meter was installed at his site vide SJO No. 75/62369 on 15.07.2014. It is averred that bill for the month of Sep/14 was charged on average basis for 178 units with ‘F’code i.e meter different at the site. It is further averred that meter was installed with 2 units and reading of this meter was 761 units and thus, bill for 759 units should have been sent instead of 178 units on average basis. It is further averred that bill for the month of Nov. /2014 was sent for 172 units on average basis but consumption was for 1201 units and bill for 1201 units should have been sent but the same was sent for 172 units only. Again bill for Jan/2015 was sent for 178 units on average basis, but consumption at the site was for 717 units and thus, bill for 717 units should have been sent, but bill  was sent for 178 units. All this was detected by Audit Party and present amount is charged on account of difference in units already charged and that which were required to be charged.The demand of OPs is legal and 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. The complaint may be dismissed with costs.

9                                              The case of the complainant is that he has an electric connection at  his residence issued by OPs and he is regularly paying all the electricity bills to OPs but in the bill dt 28.01.2016, OPs charged Rs.15,007/-as sundry charges without giving any notice or detail of the same. There is nothing due towards him as electricity charges. The OPs charged this amount wrongly and illegally as sundry charges. In reply, OPs submitted that this amount is correctly charged as sundry charges. In fact, previous bills sent to complainant were for lesser amount than actual consumption. These bills were sent to complainant inadvertently by clerical mistake. This mistake is detected by Audit Party in their report and the amount in dispute is charged as sundry charges from complainant being difference of previous bills which were sent to him for lesser amount than actual consumption amount and Ops have every right to recover this amount from complainant. Ld counsel for complainant argued that OPs have wrongly and illegally charged this amount from complainant. There was no amount due towards complainant. OPs sent bills correctly for actual consumption and not for less consumption and complainant paid all the bills. Moreover, as per their  own regulations, OPs can not charges the dues relating to previous period or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment etc or pointed out by Internal Audit or Authorised Officer without issuing a separate bill giving complete detail of the charges levied.  Copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied should also be supplied to consumer but in the present case, no separate bill or notice giving complete detail of the amount charged or period of the amount ever issued to the complainant. So, as per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not demand this amount and can not add this as sundry charges  in current bill. The Ld Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity supply Instruction Manual of OPs where regulation no. 93 is regarding payment of arrears not originally billed. Relevant regulations is reproduced hereunder:

Payment of Arrears not Originally Billed :

93.1 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/unauthorized use of electricity 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/malpractices etc. In all such cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges shall be shown as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills shall be issued separately giving complete details of the charges in regard to theft cases, slowness of meters, wrong connection of the meter and unauthorized use of electricity etc. In such cases, the copy of relevant instructions under which the charges have been levied shall also be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of cases by consumer forums if approached by the consumer.

93.2 Limitation:

Under Section 56(2) of the Act, no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two year from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied.

10                                   The complainant further put reliance on citation 2016 (2) Consumer Law Today 429 titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Others Vs Dinesh Sharma, wherein it is held that Electricity-Sundry charges can not be charged without show cause notice to complainant. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-electricity-Sundry charges added in electricity bill of complainant-Held-NO show cause notice issued to the complainant before imposing penalty-OPs have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant-In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency in service-Consumer can 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. Para 7-The appellants have failed to show any notice issued to the complainant before imposing the penalty. Our Hon’ble High Court has also opined in Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is required before imposing the penalty and an order about person who waslikely to be affected thereby. In the present case, the appellants OPs have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant. In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the electricity Act and it is deficiency in service. Consumer can 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.

 11                                       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 charged by them as sundry charges.

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

13                            As per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not charge any amount of previous dues or arrears without giving any supplementary bill or notice giving complete detail of charges and also giving copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied. They can not demand the arrear in the current bill as sundry charges and in the present case, the OPs have failed to produce any  evidence or document which proves that they issued any supplementary bill  or notice giving complete and full detail of the amount charged by them as arrears of consumption as alleged by them.

14                                    Therefore, from the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Ops have not followed the proper procedure to recover the arrear as alleged by them as per their own regulations which amounts to deficiency in service. We are fully convinced with the arguments and case law produced by complainant and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to withdraw the demand for amount of Rs.15,007/-charged by them as sundry charges. OPs are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.5000/-already deposited by complainant with OPs in compliance of the order dt 25.02.2016 passed by this Forum. However, OPs are at liberty to recover the amount due towards complainant if any after adopting the proper procedure subject to period of limitation. 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 : 29.06.2016

                   Member                   Member               President                     (Parampal Kaur)                 (P Singla)            (Ajit Aggarwal)