Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/140

Gurdarshan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

19 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :      140

Date of Institution : 29.09.2015

Date of Decision :    19.02.2016

 

Gurdarshan Singh aged about 65 years s/o Jarnail Singh, r/o Village Ghudu Wala, Tehsil & District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

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

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd Sadiq.

   .........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 Ranjit Singh, 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 set aside the demand of Rs 26,011/-raised vide bill dt 23.08.2015 and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. JG 27/0264 running in his premises 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 23.08.2015 for Rs 26,190/- in which Rs 26,011/-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 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.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs 5000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 5.10.2015, 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 a sum of Rs 26,011/-was due towards the account no. JG 27/0025, which was in the name of Jarnail singh and said connection was disconnected due to non payment of bill and now, complainant has taken a new connection in the premises and the new a/c no. is JG 27/0264 and thus, said amount is added in the present account. It is averred that present complainant is the son of said Jarnail Singh. It is further averred that vide notice dt 20.03.2015, complainant was informed and called upon to deposit the said amount but he did not deposit the same and therefore, said amount was added in the bill with the present account number. 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 affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and C-2 and documents Ex C-3  to 4 and closed the same.

6                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajiv Kumar as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-3 and closed the evidence.

7                               The ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant has a domestic electric connection installed in his residence issued by OPs and he is the consumer of Ops. He is regularly paying all the electricity bills to Ops and nothing is due as electricity charges. Complainant received a bill issued on 23.08.2015 by OPs for Rs 26,190/-. In this bill, Rs 26,011/-have been charged as sundry charges without giving any notice or detail thereof. The demand of this amount as sundry charges is illegal and is against the instructions of OPs. Complainant visited the office of OP-2 and requested to withdraw the demand of this amount as sundry charges and requested them to get deposited the current energy charges from the complainant but they refused to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and threatened to disconnect the connection of complainant, if he does not pay the bill alongwith sundry charges. The OPs have no right to demand this amount from complainant as sundry charges without giving any detail and prior notice. 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 that OPs may be directed to withdraw the demand of this amount as sundry charges and also prayed for 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 the complainant has a domestic electric connection running in his house which is issued by OPs. He argued that OPs have rightly issued the bill dt 23.08.2015 to complainant demanding a sum of Rs 26,011/-as sundry charges in this bill. In fact, earlier, there was an electric connection bearing a/c no. JG27/0025 installed in the name of Jarnail Singh, who is father of complainant. That connection was also running in the same premises where the connection in dispute of complainant is running. The connection in the name of Jarnail Singh was disconnected due to non payment of bills. After disconnection of that connection, the complainant got a new connection in his name in the same premises. So, the complainant is liable to pay the charges of amount due towards the earlier connection running the name of his father Jarnail Singh. It is wrong that no detail of the amount charged was given to the complainant. Prior to charging this amount in the bill of complainant as sundry charges, OPs issued a notice dt 20.03.2015to complainant vide which they demanded this amount from complainant. The copy of notice is Ex OP-3 but the complainant did not pay this amount to OPs despite notice.  So, the OPs charged this amount in the bill of complainant as sundry charges. 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                                   We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

10                          The case of the complainant is that he has a domestic electric connection issued by OPs in his house and he is regularly paying all the bill of electricity charges. In the month of August/2015, he received a bill in which the amount of Rs 26,011/- is charged as sundry charges without giving any detail and the OPs are not entitled to recover this amount from complainant. In reply, OPs argued that earlier there was a connection running in the same premises, where the connection in dispute is running in the name of Jarnail Singh who is the father of complainant. The connection in the name of Jarnail Singh was disconnected due to non deposit of bill. The amount in dispute is due towards Jarnail Singh as electricity charges. So, they have rightly claimed this amount from complainant as sundry charges as per rules and regulations of Ops.

11                                 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.

 

                        He argued that as per regulation 93.01, OPs have to issue a separate bill giving full detail of the charges levied prior to adding it into the electricity bills but in this case, they did not issue any separate bill giving any detail and facts for which they demanded this amount. Further as per rule 93.2, OPs cannot demand any sum from any consumer after a period of 2 years from the date when such amount becomes due, but Ops failed to adduce any evidence whether amount demanded by them is due within two years or it is beyond two years and in such case, they cannot demand this amount from complainant being its time barred as per their own regulations. He further put reliance on the citation  2004(1) CLT 622 titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Garjit Kaur, wherein our Hon’ble State Commission decided that Electricity Bill–Amount outstanding against one connection added to bill of another connection related to the complainant-respondent–No law shown which permitted the amount outstanding against one connection that could be added in the bill of another connection if the demand related to the same consumer–Order of the District Forum allowing the complaint upheld. He further put reliance on the case decided by our Hon’ble State Commission in First Appeal No1066 of 2007 decided on 30.08.2013 titled as Kuldeep Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board wherein our Hon’ble State Commission observed that even if the electricity dues are payable by the father of the appellant, then the same should be recovered from the property of the father of the appellant. The respondents cannot recover any dues from the appellant. It is settled proposition of law that any amount outstanding against one electric connection cannot be added in the bill of another connection. The moral as well as pious obligation grounds are not to be considered above the law, rules and regulations. In the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board supra there is also Electricity Board demanded the amount of electricity connection which was earlier running in the same premises disconnected in the name of father of complainant which was disconnected for non payment of bill. Our Hon’ble State Commission held that the Board cannot claim this amount from the complainant. He argued that Ops cannot demand this amount from the complainant.

12                              In the light of above discussion and arguments advanced by parties and case law produced by the complainant, we are fully convinced with complainant and he has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs cannot claim the amount of connection bearing no. JG 27/0025, which was installed in the name of Jarnail Singh from the complainant. OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs 26,011/- which is demanded by them from complainant on account of sundry charges pertaining to aforementioned account in the name of Jarnail Singh. OPs are further directed to adjust the amount deposited by complainant with OPs in compliance of the order dt 5.10.2015 of this Forum in his subsequent bills. OPs are further directed not to disconnect the connection of complainant without prior intimation or notice to him. 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 : 19.02.2016

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