Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/329

Gurwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar Mittal

15 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        329

Date of Institution :  7.11.2016

Date of Decision :     15.05.2017

 

Gurwinder Kaur w/o Harbhajan Singh r/o Canal Rest House, Baba Farid Nagar, Street no. 2, Bathinda Road, Jaitu.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, PSPCL, Sub Division, Jaitu.          

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Amit 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 for Rs.16,180/- in which Ops have demanded Rs.8043/-as sundry charges and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 5500/- 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. 3000248929 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 21.10.2016 for Rs.16,180/- in which Rs.8,043/- were charged as sundry charges without giving any notice and detail. 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.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs 5500/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 7.11.2016, 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 that 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 bill in question was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the amount. It is averred that connection of complainant bearing a/c no. 3000248929 and connection of one Mohinder Singh bearing a/c No. 3000248051 were checked by AEE, PSPCL, Jaitu alongwith his staff on 18.07.2016 and during checking it is found that at the time of attending a complaint, the service wires of these two connections were inter changed by mistake by complaint staff and this mistake was rectified by the checking team at the spot on the same day of checking i.e 18.07.2016 and thereafter, bills of both the accounts were overhauled. It was found that a sum of Rs.4923/-was due from complainant for the months 4/2016 and 6/2016. Refund of Rs.4923/-was given to second account holder Mohinder Singh and it was done vide SCAR No.175, 176/P-73/R-26. Accounts were again checked for last date of reading and date of checking and again it was found that Rs.3120/-charged from complainant on account of account over hauling and thus, this amount is charged in the bill sent to complainant and remaining amount of Rs.8127/- is charged on the basis of current consumption charges and thus, total of Rs.16,170/-is sent to complainant. complete detail of amount charged is given to complainant 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 affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 4 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Satwinder Singh as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-7 and closed the evidence.

7                               The ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. 3000248929 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 21.10.2016 for Rs.16,180/- in which Rs.8,043/-were charged as sundry charges without giving any notice and detail. 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 of Ops has caused 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 for compensation and litigation expense.

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. It is admitted that bill in question was sent by them to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the amount. It is averred that connection of complainant bearing a/c no. 3000248929 and connection of one Mohinder Singh bearing a/c no. 3000248051 were checked by AEE, PSPCL, Jaitu on 18.07.2016 and during checking it is found that at the time of attending a complaint, the service wires of these two connections were inter changed by mistake by complaint staff and this mistake was rectified by the checking team at the spot on the same day of checking i.e 18.07.2016 and thereafter, bills of both the accounts were overhauled. It was found that a sum of Rs.4923/-was due from complainant for the months 4/2016 and 6/2016. Refund of Rs.4923/-was given to second account holder Mohinder Singh and it was done vide SCAR No.175, 176/P-73/R-26. Accounts were again checked for last date of reading and date of checking and again it was found that Rs.3120/-charged from complainant on account of account over hauling and thus, this amount is charged in the bill sent to complainant and remaining amount of Rs.8127/- is charged on the basis of current consumption charges and thus, total of Rs.16,170/-is sent to complainant. Complete detail of amount charged is given to complainant but he did not deposit the same. No amount has been charged illegally. The demand raised by OPs is legal and OPs have every right to recover this amount from complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  Complainant has levelled false allegations against thm. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

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. He received a bill dated21.10.2016 in which Rs.8043/-are 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 on 18.07.2016, during checking of connections of complainant and one Mohinder Singh it is found that the service wires of these two connections were inter changed by mistake by complaint staff and this mistake was rectified at the spot on the same day of checking i.e 18.07.2016 and thereafter, bills of both the accounts were overhauled. It was found that a sum of Rs.4923/-was due from complainant for the months 4/2016 and 6/2016. Refund of Rs.4923/-was given to second account holder Mohinder Singh and it was done vide SCAR No.175, 176/P-73/R-26. Accounts were again checked for last date of reading and date of checking and again it was found that Rs.3120/-charged from complainant on account of account over hauling and thus, this amount is charged in the bill sent to complainant and remaining amount of Rs.8127/- is charged on the basis of current consumption charges and thus, total of Rs.16,170/-is sent to complainant. Ops have rightly claimed this amount and they have every right to recover the same.

11                              The Ld Counsel for complainant argued that connection of complainant was never checked by officials of Ops on 18.07.2016. It is wrong that service connection wires of complainant were interchanged with some other connection. The Ops alleged that these wires were changed by the staff of Ops while attending some other complaint two-three months ago, but they failed to produce any evidence regarding the same that on whose complaint and when service connection wires of complainant were changed with some other connection. Alleged checking is never made in the presence of complainant. The alleged over hauling of account was so made in the absence of complainant and no information regarding it was given to her. The Ops never served any prior notice giving complete details of charges to complainant.

12                       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.

                        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. 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 argued that Ops cannot demand this amount from the complainant.

13                              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 Rs.8,043/-from complainant on account of sundry charges without giving any prior notice. Therefore, OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.8043/- which is demanded by them from complainant vide bill dated 21.10.2016 on account of sundry charges. OPs are further directed to adjust in subsequent bills the amount of Rs.2500/- deposited by complainant with OPs in compliance of the order dt 7.11.2016 of this Forum. 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 : 15.05.2016

                                          Member               President                                                               (P Singla)               (Ajit Aggarwal)