DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.419 of 17-08-2011
Decided on 07-12-2011
Harjinder Singh, aged about 30 years, son of Mlagar Singh, Resident of village Dan Singh Wala, District Bathinda.
.......Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman.
A.E.E./S.D.O., PSEB Sub Division, Goniana Mandi, District Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Deepak Sehgal, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. J.P.S.Brar, counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding domestic electric connection bearing A/c No.B16DN260547N and has been paying the bills regularly. The complainant has received a bill dated 06.08.2011 for a sum of Rs.63,870/- in which an amount of Rs.62,456/- has been shown as current financial year without any basis and detail. The complainant has repeatedly approached the opposite party No.2 to know about the said amount but the opposite parties threatened the complainant that in case, he will not deposit the said amount, they will disconnect his connection. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to quash the bill dated 06.08.2011 alongwith cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that on 06.08.2008, a checking was conducted in the premises of the complainant by the officials of the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant and during checking, they found that the supply of the meter was stopped/cut and the complainant was found taking direct supply from the LT Line and was also found using the connected load to be 2.133 KW as against the sanctioned load of 1.85 KW. Accordingly, the checking staff held it a case of theft of electricity. A checking report was prepared at the site by the checking staff in the presence of the complainant, he voluntarily put his signatures on the said checking report in token of his satisfaction and a copy of the same was handed over to him. As such, on the basis of the said checking report, a provisional demand notice u/s 126 of the Electricity Act bearing memo No.2173 dated 18.08.2008 for a sum of Rs.47,365/- on account of theft of electricity was issued to the complainant and asked him to deposit the demanded amount or to file the objections before the Designated Authority within 7 days but the complainant has neither filed any objections nor deposited the demanded amount. The opposite parties have further pleaded that thereafter, various notices and reminders were sent to the complainant but to no effect and the said amount has been charged in the bill in question as per rules of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. The complainant instead of depositing the said amount, has filed the present complaint.
3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The complainant has submitted that he had received a bill dated 06.08.2011 for his domestic electric connection bearing A/c No.B16DN260 547N of Rs.63,870/- which included Rs.62,456/- as current financial year. This amount has been incorporated in the said bill without any basis and reasons.
6. The opposite parties have submitted that on 06.08.2008, a checking was conducted in the premises of the complainant by the officials of the opposite parties in his presence and during checking, it was found that the supply of the meter was stopped/cut and he was found taking direct supply from the LT Line and was also using the connected load 2.133 KW as against the sanctioned load of 1.85 KW. Accordingly, the checking staff held it a case of theft of electricity. A checking report was prepared at the site, the complainant put his signatures voluntarily on the same in token of his satisfaction and a copy of the said checking report was handed over to him. Accordingly, a provisional demand notice u/s 126 of the Electricity Act bearing memo No.2173 dated 18.08.2008 of Rs.47,365/- on account of theft of electricity was issued to the complainant and asked him to deposit the demanded amount or to file the objections before the Designated Authority within 7 days but he neither filed any objections nor deposited the demanded amount. Thereafter, various notices and reminders were sent to the complainant but to no effect and the said amount has been added in the bill in question as per rules. The complainant instead of depositing the said amount, has filed the present complaint.
7. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the complainant has filed objections Ex.C-4 against the above said provisional assessment order No.2173 dated 18.08.2008 against A/c No.DN26/547 pertaining to Harjinder Singh S/o Mlagar Singh. These objections have been duly received by the opposite parties on 27.08.2008. After issuing the provisional order of assessment, no other notice had been issued to the complainant regarding the said demand nor his objection were heard or decided. A perusal of Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-9 shows that no amount has been shown in previous financial year or in the column of sundry charges.
8. The opposite parties have specifically deposed in their affidavits that the complainant has not filed objection within 7 days nor deposited the amount but a perusal of record placed on file shows that the complainant has filed objections but these were not heard. Moreover, no Final Order of Assessment has been issued to the complainant.
9. A perusal of bill dated 06.08.2011 Ex.C-2 shows that the sanctioned load is 1.85 Kw whereas the connected load mentioned in the checking report is 2.133 KW. During the last three years, the opposite parties have not enhanced the load of the complainant or have sent any notice except the provisional assessment order. Moreover, they have not placed any cogent and convincing evidence that why they have not enhanced the load of the complainant if they had found the complainant using the connected load of 2.133 KW.
10. The demand has been raised by the opposite parties after the expiry of three years i.e. on 06.08.2011. A perusal of Ex.R-3 i.e. the checking report shows that the supply of the meter stopped/cut and the complainant was found taking direct supply from the LT Line and was also found using the connected load 2.133 KW against the sanctioned load of 1.85 KW. If the opposite parties found the complainant indulging in theft of electricity, they should have lodged an FIR against him and issued him a Final Order of Assessment and have taken further necessary action as per their rules and regulations but in the present case, the opposite parties have issued a provisional order of assessment only and had remained silent for the period of three years and have never shown any sundry charges against him in any of his previous bills. Moreover, if any amount on account of unauthorized use of electricity was due against the complainant, the opposite parties should have raised that demand repeatedly from the complainant but after a lapse of three years, they have suddenly raised the demand through bill dated 06.08.2011. As per their own rules and regulations, the opposite parties can not raise the demand after the expiry of two years. As per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 , which is reproduced as under:-
Section 56(2) - “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years 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 and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.
The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in case titled Shubh Timb Steels Limited (M/s) & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board & Ors. 2010 (3) CPC 593, wherein it has been held:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 8 – Electricity bill – OP raised a bill of Rs.2,56,404/- against complainant in the year 2000 – Notice for recovery was issued in 2008 after a lapse of 8 years – Time limit for recovery of arrears is only 2 years prescribed u/s 9 and 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 – No reason for considerable delay explained – OP is debarred to recover time barred arrears from complainant – Amount of Rs.75,587/- recovered illegally from complainant directed to be refunded alongwith 9% p.a. interest – Complaint allowed.”
Further, the Reliance can be put on the precedent laid down by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in case titled Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. Vs Munna Lal Jain, III (2010) CPJ 9, wherein it has been held:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 15 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 56(2) – Electricity – Previous bills demanded – Domestic connection Bill including arrears of preceding period of two years issued – Deficiency in service alleged – Complaint allowed – Hence appeal – Contention, bills regularly sent to connection holder, rejected – Section 56(2) of Electricity Act clearly prohibits raising of bills for a period beyond two years – Deficiency in service proved – Compensation and costs awarded by Forum set aside.”
Further, the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in case titled M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. Vs Babulal Savita, II (2008) CPJ 398, wherein it has been held:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Electricity – Arrears – Time barred – Arrears of previous owner – Complainant not liable to pay – Demand regarding previous arrears of period much more than two years immediately preceding demand, time-barred – O.P. Cannot recover arrears from complainant.”
Further, the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, in case titled Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs Rajji Bai, IV (2008) CPJ 563, wherein it has been held:-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Electricity – Sundry dedicated scheme applied – Rs.10,000 deposited by complainant – Sundry charges, in addition to balance payable under scheme, demanded – Demand made on basis of objections raised by Audit Party – Relevant instructions as per circular not followed by O.P. - Demand raised along with energy consumption charges, after expiry period of three years, barred by Section 56, Electricity Act, 2003 – Demand illegal, unjustified, set aside by Forum – Order upheld in appeal.”
11. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation and the amount raised in the bill dated 06.08.2011 for Rs.62,856/- is hereby quashed. The complainant has already deposited the amount of Rs.22,000/- vide receipt Ex.C-10 with the opposite parties for seeking stay with the order of this Forum dated 18.08.2011. The opposite parties are also directed to refund the amount of Rs.22,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of deposit till realization. The opposite parties are at liberty to charge the amount of consumed units from the complainant. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
07-12-2011
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
