Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1567/2015

Bawa Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ajaypal Singh

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  1567

                                                Instituted on:    01.12.2015

                                                Decided on:       20.09.2016

 

Bawa Singh son of Sajjan Singh @ Gajjan Singh, resident of Vllage Bhalwan, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur through LRs 1. Amar Singh son of Bawa Singh, resident of village Bhalwan, 2. Balwinder Kaur daughter of Nachhattar Singh, resident of village Badrukhan, 3. Surjit Kaur daughter of Gurpreet Singh, resident of village Jallan 4. Baljit Kaur wife of Harpreet Singh, resident of village Bhasaur 5. Paramjit Kaur wife of late Bawa Singh.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.             Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mal, Patiala through its Secretary.

2.             Asstt. Executive Engineer (SDO) PSPCL Ltd. Sub Division, Bhalwan, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Ajaypal Singh, Advocate.

For Opposite parties         :       Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Bawa Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) and thereafter Shri Bawa Singh died and after his death,  Amar Singh and others were impleaded as LRs of Shri Bawa Singh.  The complainant has filed the present complaint on the ground that he obtained the domestic electric connection bearing account number L87BH230581W at Village Bhalwan and was paying the bills of electricity regularly from time to time.  In the present case, the complainant was aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 16.11.2015, wherein an amount of Rs.9398/- was demanded on account of sundry charges and allowances, whereas the status of the meter is ‘O’.  It is further averred that the complainant requested the OP number 2 to withdraw the demand of Rs.9398/- raised in the bill dated 16.11.2015 on account of sundry charges, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.9398/- and claimed compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is further stated that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 copies of bills and Ex.C-6 copy of death certificate and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of MCO, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-3 copies of bills, Ex.OP-4 copy of detail of amount,  Ex.OP-5 copy of self declaration, Ex.OP-6 copy of A&A form, Ex.OP-7 copy of test report, Ex.OP-8 copy of aadhar card, Ex.OP-9 copy of SJO, Ex.OP-10 affidavit of Er. Harjinder Singh and closed evidence.

 

4              We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5              It is an admitted fact that Bawa Singh was the consumer of the Ops by obtaining the connection in question.  Now, since Bawa Singh has died, as is evident from the copy of death certificate on record Ex.C-6, his LRS appeared to defend the case and were impleaded as a party in the case.

 

6              In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on account of demand of an amount of Rs.9398/- raised by the Ops on account of sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 16.11.2015, Ex.C-2 which the complainant has termed to be wrong and illegal. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that it is not open for the OPs to charge the disputed amount of Rs.9398/-  in the bill dated 16.11.2015, Ex.C-2 in the current bill of consumption  as done in the present case by the Ops, which is an admitted fact of the OPs.  The Ops are duty bound to explain about each of the demand by separately raising the same. But, in the present case, the Ops has not done like this.  To the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the demand of Rs.9398/- has been rightly raised for the consumption of 1576 units which were not earlier charged due to effecting of meter change order, as such the demand is said to be on actual consumption basis.

7              After perusal of the file and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Ops are not entitled to raise such a demand in the current consumption bill dated 16.11.2015 in view of Regulation number 124.1 of the Sales Regulations, which provides as under:-

“124.1: There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years of otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/load or demand surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/detected by the authorised 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 bill of the consumer.”  In these circumstances and in view of Sales Regulation number 124.1 of the Sales Regulations of the OPs, we find that it is not open for them to raise the demand in question in such a manner as raised by the Ops in the bill dated 16.11.2015, Ex.C-2 in the present case.   The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited PSEB versus Hardeep Singh 2010(2) CLT 259 (Punjab State Commission), wherein it has been held that the OPs are required to raise such a demand through a separate detailed notice as required by Regulation No.124.1 and adding of such a demand in the bill as sundry charges is a violation of regulations.   In such circumstances, we feel that the OPs are not only negligent but also are deficient in rendering service towards the complainant by inserting such a huge amount in the bill dated 16.11.2015 of the complainant without ascertaining any reasons for the same.

 

8              In view of the above discussion and legal position, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.9398/- raised through bill dated 16.11.2015. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. However, the OPs are at liberty to raise a fresh demand according to the rules and regulations of the OPs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 20, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member