DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/208  of 23.9.2015

                                      Decided on:        14.6.2016

Davinder Singh son of Amarjit Singh, resident of Village Zarikrpur, P.O.Ghanaur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.      Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.(Powercom),Head Office:Mall Road, Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2.      The Assistant Executive Engineer/Sub Divisional Office, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.(Powercom),Sub Division: Bahadurgarh, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member                                     

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.D.S.Behgal , Advocate

For Ops:                       Sh.P.S.Walia,Advocate                

                                         ORDER

A.P.S.Rajput, PRESIDENT

1. Complainant Davinder Singh son of Sh.Amarjit Singh resident of Village Zarikrpur, P.O.Ghanaur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties ( hereinafter referred to as the Ops) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act).The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is running a milk dairy farm under the name and style of Sandhu Dairy at Bahadurgarh for earning his livelihood and applied for a three phase electricity connection vide receipt No.119 dated 20.5.2013. An account No.P41BF231491N having load of 9.5KW was sanctioned  and a meter was installed in this regard.
3. It is further alleged in the complaint that since the sanctioning of the connection and installation of the meter i.e. till August,2015, the employee of the Ops regularly visited the dairy farm of the complainant and recorded the consumption of electricity units but  no bill was issued to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that  he received a bill dated 8.8.2015 amounting to Rs.1,80,290/- for the consumption of 23496 units for the period from 15.6.2015 to 8.8.2015, in which sundry charges of Rs.1,59,555/- have been charged by the Ops without providing the detail of the same. The complainant also got sent a legal notice dated 26.8.2015 upon the Ops in this regard but no satisfactory steps were taken by the Ops. Thus there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops for which the complainant is suffering from mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the Ops to withdraw the bill dated 8.8.2015 amounting to Rs.1,80,290/-;  to provide the detail of the bills alongwith unit consumption; Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on account of inconvenience, mental agony, harassment  and humiliation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops who appeared and filed the written version having taken the preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act as he is running the business of Dairy Farm having NRS  electricity connection. On merits it is,   submitted that the complainant has applied for the change of name of the electric connection having A/c No.BF 23/0716 which was running in the name of Smt.Raj Rani w/o Sh.Roshan Lal and also for increase of load from 2.96 KW to 9.50KW for which the complainant deposited an amount  of Rs.16,745/- vide receipt No.119 dated 20.5.2013.It is alleged that due to increase in load, the old single phase meter was changed into three phase meter vide SJO No.110/534 and  installed in a separate box . It is further submitted that the Meter Reader while preparing the bill of a/c No.BF 23/0716 could not find the meter since, new meter was not installed at the old place and the bill was prepared with “S” code i.e. meter not at site and as such P.D.C.O was issued on 12.8.2013. It is also submitted that the consumer was made to understand that the bill is of total consumption of electricity for the last two years approximately and the complainant is bound to pay the amount of the bill .After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint , it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit, copy of receipt Ex.C1, electricity bill, Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts Exs.C4 & C5 and his counsel closed the evidence.
6. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Er.J.K.Jindal, AEE Bahadurgarh,  Ex.OP1, copy of reply to legal notice, Ex.OP2 copy of receipt , Ex.OP3 copy of MCO and closed the evidence.
7. The ld.counsel for the complainant has stated that the complainant is running a dairy farm for earning his livelihood and had applied for three phase electricity connection, thus the complainant is a consumer as per the provisions of the Act. He stated that the employees of the Ops visited the premises of the complainant and  recorded the consumption of electricity units but never issued the bills for the consumption charges.The ld. counsel pleaded that the complainant  had received a bill dated 8.8.2015 amounting to Rs.1,80,290/- for the consumption of 23496 units for the period 15.6.2015 to 8.8.2015, in which sundry charges amounting to sum of Rs.1,59,555/- had been charged by the Ops without providing the detail of the same. He further pleaded that the Ops were duty bound to regularly send the consumption charges to the complainant, so that he could timely deposit the same. The ld. counsel argued that due to the negligent act of the Ops the complainant is being compelled to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,59,555/- ,which is illegal and arbitrary demand on behalf of the OPs. The ld. counsel argued that it is established from act and conduct of the Ops, that Ops had committed deficiency of service by raising the said illegal demand. The ld. counsel also relied upon the case law titled as; Assistant Executive Engineer, Industrial Area Sub-Division, DHBVNL, Sirsa Versus Sangeeta Sachdeva 2001(1)C.P.J.534: 2009(2) CLT 492 of the Hn’ble Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in which in Para no.7,  it has been held , “We have carefully perused the bills placed on record as Exhibits C-2 to C15. A perusal of the bills indicates that no mention of any arrears pertaining to the period 5/1998 to 9/1998  have been indicated earlier than the disputed bills. If the Op had taken the base for calculation of the arrears as November 1988 to March 1999 the arrears should have been reflected in the bill dated 19 April,1999 i.e. Exhibit C-10 and thereafter. However, we find no mention of any arrears till the bill issued on 18^th April,2000 as Exhibit C4. It is settled law that no arrears for the period earlier than 6 months can be claimed by the Op unless these are continuously reflected in the bills from the time they became due. Therefore, we find no merit in the plea of the OP that the complainant was liable to pay some arrears pertaining to the period 5/1998 to 9/1998 and the same had been added in the disputes bills. Furthermore the two disputed bills i.e. Exhibits C2 and C3 have been correctly ordered by the learned District Forum to be corrected on the basis of consumption for the period from April 1999 to September 1999 even though the meter had shown very little consumption”
8. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs objected to the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. He submitted that the complainant is not a consumer in view of the provisions of the Act. The ld. counsel also submitted that the complainant is running a dairy farming business in the name and style of Sandhu Dairy at Bahadurgarh and it cannot be considered that he is running the said commercial activities for earning his livelihood. He further submitted that the complainant has further hired employees to carry on his business activities and it is not the case that the complainant is only having two to three cows, whereby complainant himself carries on his business.
9. The ld. counsel pleaded that the complainant had applied for change of name of the electric connection from 2.96 KW to 9.50KW as it is evident from the copy of receipt i.e Ex.OP-2.He also pleaded that that due to increase in load, the old single phase meter was changed into three phase meter and the same was installed in a separate box. He further pleaded that the meter reader while preparing the bill  could not locate the meter, since new meter was not installed at the old place and the bill was prepared with “S” code i.e. meter not at site and as such P.D.C.O was issued on 12.8.2013.The ld. counsel also cited case law decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, titled as; M/s.Swastic Industries Vs Maharastra State Electricity Board, Special Leave Petition (C) No.765 of 1997.D/d 24.1.1997, where in it has been observed in para no. 3 to 5 “ 3. Section 60A of the Electricity(Supply) Act,1948 envisages the enlargement of the period of limitation in certain circumstances , i.e., intervening period of the constitution of the Board, and the right of the State to recover the amounts due to the State for consumption of electricity delegating the power to the Board. In that behalf, clauses(i) and (ii) therein operate as under:

1. Where it has been constituted before the commencement of the Electricity (Supply) Amendment Act,1966 (3 of 1966) within three years of such commencement; and
2. Where it has been constituted after such commencement, within three years of its constitution”.

4.      This is an enabling provision by way of suit. Despite the fact that Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act clearly empowers the Board to demand and collect any charge from the Consumer and collect the same towards the electrical energy supplied by the Board in the following terms:

          “Where any person neglects to pay any charge for energy or any sum, other than a charge for energy, due from him to a licensee in respect of the supply of energy to him, the licensee may, after giving not less than seven clear days’ notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply and for the purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply-line, or other works, being the property of the licensee, through which energy may be supplied , and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer”.

5.      It would, thus, be clear that right to recover the charges is one of it and right to discontinue supply of electrical energy to the consumer who neglects to pay charges is another part of it.The right to file a suit is a matter of option given to the licensee, the Electricity Board. Therefore, the mere fact that there is a right given to the Board to file the suit and the limitation has been prescribed to file the suit, it does not take away the right conferred on the Board under Section 24 to make demand for payment of the charges and on neglecting to pay the same, they have the power to discontinue the supply or cut-off the supply, as the case may be, when the consumer neglects to pay the charges. The intendment appears to be that the obligations are mutual. The Board would supply electrical energy and the consumer is under corresponding duty to pay the sum due towards the electricity consumed. Thus the Electricity Board, having exercised that power, since admittedly the petitioner had neglected to pay the bill for additional sum, was right in disconnecting the supply without recourse to filing of the suit to recover the same. The National Commission, therefore, was right in following the judgment of the Bombay High Court and allowing the appeal setting aside the order of the State Commission. Moreover, there is no deficiency of service in making supplementary demand for escaped billing. There may be negligence or collusion by subordinate staff in not properly recording the reading or allowing pilferage to the consumers. That would be deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act. We do not find any illegality warranting interference”.

10. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we are of the opinion that the OPs have failed to place on record any material to establish that the complainant is running the dairy farm business at a large scale. The OPs have also failed to establish that the bills were sent in continuity and the complainant had not been paying the same after installation of the new meter. It is admitted fact that the meter reader could not locate the meter installed by the employee of the Ops, therefore the said bills of consumption could not be sent to the complainant. The OPs have failed to place on record any material/document in order, to establish that the Ops had attempted to locate the said new meter installed. In our view there seems to be a collusion between the parties and the OPs acted negligently by not issuing the consumption bills timely, even after knowing the fact that the meter could not be located at the premises of the complainant.
11. The case law cited by the ld. counsel for the OPs with regard to complainant being commercial entity is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the OPs have failed to prove the same. In case titled as M/s Swastic Industries Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board(Supra),It has been observed by Hon’ble Apex Court that “Deficiency of service is only if, there is negligence, collusion by subordinate staff in not properly recording the reading or allowing pilferage to consumer”. In our view in the present case there is negligence, collusion by subordinate staff in not  recording the reading  and allowing pilferage to consumer. Thus the present case law would also not be of any help to the OPs.
12. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find force in the contentions and the case law relied by the ld. counsel for the complainant. Hence we direct the OPs not to recover a sum of Rs.1,59,555/- mentioned as Sundry charges in the electricity bill i.e Ex.C-2 being illegal, result of negligence and collusion by staff of Ops. However the OPs are at liberty to recover the consumption charges by giving details, only in accordance with the Electricity Rules, Manual and Act. Hence the present complaint is disposed of, in view of our aforesaid discussion. No order as to cost, as there seems to be collusion between the parties.        
13. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 2.6.2016  and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 14.6.2016

                             Neelam Gupta                        A.P.S.Rajput

                   Member                                  President