DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Complaint No. CC/14/302 of 31.10.2014.
Decided on: 11.03.2015.
Gurwinder Singh son of Harpal Singh, resident of HIG-7, 2nd Floor, SST Nagar, Patiala, now resident of Village Lalina, Tehsil land District Patiala, through his Special Attorney Tarlochan Singh Chahal son of late Sh. Gurbax Singh Chahal, resident of HIG-7, 2nd Floor, SST Nagar, Patiala Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through its Managing Director.
2. S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (West Commercial), near Railway Station, Patiala.
Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Sh. D.R. Arora, President.
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member.
Present: Sh. K.S. Aulakh counsel for the complainant.
Sh. G.S. Dhaliwal counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
D.R. ARORA:
1. The complainant is the holder of domestic electricity connection bearing contract A/C no.3000016474 and consumer No.P16RP450066-A. He has been depositing the charges of the electricity bills issued by the O.Ps and nothing was due against him.
2. The O.Ps issued the bill dated 22.09.2014 for Rs.1,00,900/- also having demanded a sum of Rs.93,900/- towards sundry charges. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.7,000/- towards current charges on 07.10.2014. The demand in respect of the sundry charges raised by the O.Ps vide the said bill dated 22.09.2014 is described to be illegal, null and void and that the complainant is not liable to pay any amount nor the O.Ps have got any right to recover the same in as much as the O.Ps have never issued any notice to the complainant nor any opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the complainant before raising any demand.
3. It is further averred that the average consumption of the complainant per by monthly ranges between Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant used the electricity in such an excessive manner.
4. The complainant approached the O.Ps with a request to withdraw the demand of the sundry charges and not to recover the same but no heed was paid to the same and rather the O.Ps threatened to recover the same forcibly and to disconnect the supply to the connection of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant has brought this complaint through his special attorney Sh. Tarlochan Singh Chahal under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the O.Ps to quash the demand of the sundry charges raised vide the impugned bill, the O.Ps be restrained from disconnecting the supply to the electricity connection of the complainant and to further award him Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation towards the harassment and the mental agony.
5. On notice, the O.Ps appeared and filed their written version. It is admitted by the O.Ps that the complainant is the holder of the electricity connection no.P16RP450066-A. It is denied that nothing was due against the complainant. As a matter of fact, the electricity meters were shifted from the residence of the consumers to the poles through their contractor Sh. Harvinder Singh on 04.07.2012 and in that process the cable of the meter of the complainant was interchanged with the cable of the meter of the consumer bearing No. RP45/0392 inadvertently. When the connections of the two consumers were checked, the said error had come to their notice vide checking made on register No.1639 at page no.82 in the presence of the representatives of the two connections. The remarks about the interchanging of the cable of the two connections were made in the report and the mistake was rectified in the presence of the representatives of the two consumers, who signed the checking report having acknowledged checking qua the contents thereof.
6. It is further averred that the account of the complainant was overhauled and the amount of Rs.93,900/- towards sundry charges was added in the bill dated 22.09.2014. It is admitted by the O.Ps that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.7,000/- against the said bill. The amount of Rs.93,900/- is outstanding against the complainant. It is denied that the demand raised by the O.Ps is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the O.Ps, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex. CA, the sworn affidavit of his special attorney along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 and the special attorney of the complainant closed the evidence. On the other hand, on behalf of the O.Ps, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex. OPA, the sworn affidavit of A.E.E. Jiwan Kumar Jindal of Commercial West Sub Division of PSPCL, Patiala, Ex. OPB, the sworn affidavit of A.E.E. (Technical) Mr. Ashish Bansal of West Sub-Division of PSPCL, Patiala, Ex. OPC, the sworn affidavit of J.E (Technical) Mr. Gurmeet Singh Bagri of West Sub Division of PSPCL, Patiala along with document Ex. OP1 and closed their evidence.
8. The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
9. Ex. C4 is the impugned bill dated 22.09.2014 issued by O.P no.2 in respect of the consumer No.P16RP450066A for the period 25.07.2014 to 22.09.2014 for Rs.1,00899/- as per detail given below:-
SOP ED OCTRAI
CURRENT 5965 776 100
SUNDRY CHGS 70294 0 0
ARR CURR YEAR 19142 1230 162
ARR PREV YEAR 2474 317 45
ADJUSTMENT 360 0 0
NET SOP NET ED NET OCT TOTAL
98235 2323 307 100865
TOTAL RENTS: 34
TOTAL CHARGES 100899
10. The complainant deposited Rs.7,000/- vide receipt Ex. C5 dated 07.10.2014 towards current charges.
11. The complainant has not produced the electricity bills issued prior to 22.09.2014 qua receipts regarding deposit of the same so as to show that the complainant was not in arrears of charges of current year as also the arrears in respect of the previous year as shown in the bill, although it is very much averred by the complainant that nothing was due against the complainant before the receipt of the impugned bill. Thus, the complainant has failed to show that he was not in arrears of the current year charges and arrears of the previous year charges as shown in the impugned bill.
12. Now coming to the sundry charges of Rs.70,294/- claimed in the bill, it is the plea taken up by the O.Ps that as a matter of fact when the meters installed in the houses of the consumers were got shifted on the poles, the cable of the connection of the complainant i.e. consumer bearing no.RP45/066A was interchanged with the meter of the consumer bearing no.RP45/0392 regarding which the O.Ps had come to know by virtue of the checking dated 23.01.2014 made by the A.E.E. (Technical) Mr. Ashish Bansal along with J.E (Technical) Mr. Gurmeet Singh Bagri of West Sub Division of P.S.P.C.L, Patiala as is made out with the help of the sworn affidavit Ex. OPB of A.E.E. (Technical) Mr. Ashish Bansal and Ex. OPC of J.E. (Technical) Mr. Gurmeet Singh Bagri and Ex. OP1, the copy of the checking report dated 23.01.2014 and that after checking, the connections were rectified.
13. It is the plea taken up by the O.Ps that the checking was made in the presence of the representatives of the two consumers, who signed the checking report having acknowledged the checking qua the contents thereof. Nothing is disclosed by the O.Ps in the written version as to who was the representative present on behalf of the complainant and what relation he/she had with the complainant. So much so the report Ex. OP1 does not disclose about the identity of the representatives of two consumers.
14. The O.Ps have not placed on record any data of the consumption made by the consumer of connection bearing no.RP45/0392 during the period 04.07.2012 to 23.01.2014 and similarly as to what was the data of the consumption made by the consumer bearing no.RP45/0066 i.e. the complainant and how and in what manner the same were transferred from one account to the other.
15. It is also important to note that no copy of the checking report is shown to have been furnished to the complainant as no endorsement in this regard is made on the checking report Ex. OP1.
16. The complainant was taken with a surprise as he found the amount of the sundry charges of Rs.70,294/- in the impugned bill Ex. C4 without any opportunity of being heard afforded to him. In the case of the citation Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Another Vs Rajji Bai IV (2008) CPJ 563, the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula made a reference to the circular no.27/96 which reads 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 ensured that seven days is given to the consumer before imposing penalty in such cases.”
17. We are of the considered view that before the O.Ps claimed the amount of sundry charges through the impugned bill, they were obliged to provide the complainant with a copy of checking report and also to call upon his explanation as to why the amount of sundry charges be not recovered from him and in that way the complainant has been condemned unheard especially when it is not shown that the complainant or his representative had signed the checking report and the complainant was made aware about the same. Consequently, we accept the complaint partly to the extent that the O.Ps are not entitled to recover the amount of sundry charges Rs.70,294/- from the complainant without serving a notice upon the complainant along with the copy of checking report but the complainant is bound to deposit the amount of arrears of current year charges i.e. SOP Rs.19,142/- + ED Rs.1,230/- + Octrai Rs.162/- and arrears of previous year i.e. Rs.2,474/- + ED Rs.317/- + Octrai Rs.45/- as per demand raised by the impugned bill Ex. C4 because the complainant has not been able to show that he was not in arrears of the bills issued prior to 22.09.2014. The O.Ps are at liberty to recover the amount of the sundry charges after giving a notice to the complainant along with the copy of checking report and giving a period of 7 days to reply the same. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, no orders as to costs.
Pronounced.
Dated: 11.03.2015.
Neelam Gupta D.R. Arora
Member President
