Punjab

Hoshiarpur

CC/14/170

Daljit 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.  170/05.08.2014
                                            Decided on :19.3.2015

Daljit Singh aged 42 years S/o Parkash 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 
SUSHMA HANDOO, MEMBER           
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. H55CA830242F.  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 A/c No. H55CA830242F is in the name of Parkash Singh, father of complainant  issued by PSPCL which falls under Sub urban Division Hoshiarpur. The complainant is availing services of PSPCL and is regularly paying the electricity bills issued under aforesaid account number. OP No.3 issued  bill for the month of March-April,2014 to the tune of Rs.5,470/- in which amount of Rs.4,717/- was added as miscellaneous charges which is totally unfair as complainant was never in arrears of any miscellaneous charges before the month of  March-April,2014. Complainant approached OP No.3 and made him aware about the mistake in the bill. Complainant was asked to pay the bill as per electricity consumed by him after deducting the miscellaneous charges. OP No.1 to 3 had not deleted the amount and again issued bill for the month of May-June,2014 in which Rs.5,254/- was added under the head of previous bills pending to be paid. The complainant is not  in arrears of any dues to be paid as amount of Rs.4,717/- has been wrongly added in the bill for the month of March-April,2014 and has not been deleted and again added in the bill for the month of May-June,2014 under the head previous dues. OP No.3 is threatening that the electricity connection will be disconnected if the total bill amounting to Rs.6,800/- including the amount is not paid. OP be directed to issue fresh bill after deleting the amount under the head of miscellaneous charges in the electricity bill for the month of March-April,2014 and the amount wrongly added in the bill for the month of May-June,2014 under the head previous dues and the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed. Hence this complaint. 
3.          On notice,   OP filed  joint contested written statement  taking routine preliminary objections. On merits, it is admitted  that the electricity bill issued for the month of March-April, 2014 was to the tune of Rs. 5,470/- in which an amount of Rs. 4,717/- was added as sundry charges. In fact, an electro mechanical meter was replaced on 28.08.2012 with electronic meter through MCO No.178/96964 dated 28.08.2012 for shifting out the meters from houses/ shops to 20X1 pillar boxes as per scheme of PSPCL. Accordingly, the electric 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). 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 10/2013 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. 211 dated 13-02-2014. After verifying the same by the OP, an amount of  Rs. 4,717/- was charged through SCA No. 37/75/12 in the bill issued for the period of March-April, 2014 as under: 
    Month    Difference of units    SOP        E.D
    10/2012        223-63 = 160        693        90
    12/2012        141-9   = 132        457        73
      2/2013        113-6   = 107        341        62
      4/2013        159-6   = 153        532        88
      6/2013       325-229 =  96        578        75
      8/2013        391-214 = 77            1065            139
    10/2013        306-229 = 77        464        60
                            _________________________
                            4130        587  = Rs.4,717/-
                            ________________________
It is further averred that due to election duties of the concerned employees outside City Hoshiarpur, only the current bills amount was got deposited. It was never assured that the amount was wrongly added under miscellaneous charges and it will be deleted. In fact, it was not at all a mistake in the bill. Due to deposit of current bill for the period of March-April, 2014 by the complainant out of total bill of Rs. 5,470/-, the balance amount of Rs. 5,312/- including late payment surcharge was carried forward in the bill issued for the period of May-June, 2014. As the consumer is bound to pay the consumption charges of the actual units consumed by him, the question of deletion of Rs. 6,800/- added as sundry charges in the bill for the month of March-April, 2014 does not arise. The answering OP is bound to disconnect the electric connection as per rules and regulations of Power Com who are not paying the bills within the time given to them.   The complaint is without merits and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.          
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 Mark OP-2, half margin Mark OP-3, ledgers Mark OP-4 to Mark 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.          Ld.counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has received electricity bill for the month March-April,2014 to the tune of Rs.5,470/- in which electricity consumed during that period was near about 300 units  and OP without issuing any show cause notice to the complainant had wrongly added Rs.4,717/- as miscellaneous charges which is totally unfair as complainant was never in arrears of any amount before the month of March-April,2014. On receiving the said bill complainant approached OP NO.3 who assured that amount wrongly added under the miscellaneous  charges will be deleted, then he again received bill for the month of May-June,2014 in which an amount of Rs.5,254/- was added under the head previous dues. There is deficiency  of service  on the part of OP. 
8.          Counsel for the OP has argued that complainant is not a consumer of OP as the electric connection in dispute is in the name of the Parkash Singh and not in the name of complainant. Ld.counsel for the OP further argued that electro mechanical meter was replaced with electronic meter through MCO No.178/96964  dated 28.8.2012 on 28.8.2012 for shifting out the meters from houses/shops. Accordingly, the electric bills were issued of consumption in 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. 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 10/12 to 10/2013 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.211 dated 13.2.2014 and after verifying  the same by the OP an amount of Rs.4,717/- was charged.  Thus, the amount of Rs.4,717/- included in the bill for the month of March-April,2014 under the head of miscellaneous charges and shown as previous dues could not be accepted as the same has been charged correctly as these are his actual consumption charges including SOP, ED & octroi  etc being the difference of units consumed. 
9.         We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record.     
10.         Before going into merits of the case, we would like to observe here that electricity connection in dispute does not stand in the name of the complainant. Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is consumer of OP or not?  
11.        It is held by our own State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh in 2006 (2) CPC titled as Satpal Vs. PSEB through its Secretary as under.-
              xx         xx        xx
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 section 2(1) (d) (i) - Consumer- beneficiary- It is settled that a person who is staying in a house as a actual user of electricity would be a consumer beneficiary- in the present case the electricity connection was in the name of father of the complainant- a demand of Rs.12,370/- was raised against complainant by PSEB against which District Forum was approached for necessary relief- order of the Forum holding that complainant is not a consumer cannot be sustained- a beneficiary is also a consumer as defined in  CP-Act- order set aside.
                xx             xx        xx
Further, it is held in II (1998) CPJ 2010 titled as P.K. Malhan Vs. SDO, PSEB as under.- 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2 (1) (d) – Consumer Beneficiary – Electricity – Complainant using electricity - Electricity  connection in another's name - Whether complainant is consumer being  beneficiary ? (Yes)". 
                 In view of the above said legal position, the present complainant is consumer of the OP, hence the complaint is maintainable. 
12.              Further, an electro mechanical meter was replaced with electronic meter on 28.8.2012 and meter was shifted   from houses/ shops to 20X1 pillar boxes as per scheme of PSPCL. Accordingly, the electricity  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. 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 10/2013 was checked and short assessment on account of difference of units i.e. actual consumption of units minus units bills were calculated through half margin No. 211 dated 13-02-2014.    After verifying the same by the OP, an amount of  Rs. 4,717/- was charged. 
13.          Counsel for the OP has failed to show if any notice was issued to the consumer before overhauling 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 as under.-
“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 concerned 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 ensure 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”. 
        We further draw support from a judgment passed by our own Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh, in a case reported in 2004(1) CPC 567 (PSEB Vs. Kuldip Singh) para 4 of which is 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”.
14.           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". 
15.          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.
16.          In view of the above discussion, complaint is partly accepted and the impugned demand of Rs. 4,717/- added in the bills for month of March- April, 2014 under the head of miscellaneous charges 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  OP shall be liable  to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.7,717/- from the date 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