Punjab

Hoshiarpur

CC/14/153

Jai Kishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. G S Rehill

19 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM HOSHIARPUR
(3RD FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HOSHIARPUR)

                            C.C. No.  153/14.07.2014
                                            Decided on :19.03.2015

Jai Kishan aged 37 years S/o Balraj Kumar R/o VPO Dagana Kallan Hoshiarpur.
                                    Complainant                        vs.

1.PSPCL, The Mall Patiala, through its Managing Director Cum Chairman.
2.Superintendent Engineer, PSPCL Hoshiarpur.
3.SDO Sub Urban Division PSPCL Hoshiarpur.
                                    Opposite parties

 Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:    Sh. Naveen Puri,President.
              Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary, Member.
              Mrs. Sushma Handoo,Member. 

Present:      Sh.G.S.Rehill, counsel for the complainant.
             Sh.B.S.Choudhary, counsel for the OP. 

ORDER 
SUSHMA HANDOO, MEMBER    
1.          The complainant has filed the present amended complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director cum Chairman and others (hereinafter referred to as OP, for short) praying for a direction to the OP to issue fresh bill after deleting the amount wrongly added under the head of miscellaneous charges in the electricity bill for the months of March-April,2014 and in the bill of May-June,2014 under the head of previous dues and to restrain it from disconnecting the electricity connection bearing AC No.H55CA830681M. The OP be also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.        Briefly stated, A/c no. H55CA830681M is in his name and  has been regularly paying electricity bills issued to him under aforesaid account number. OP No.3 issued  bill for the month of March-April,2014 to the tune of Rs.9,110/- including Rs.9,004/- was added as miscellaneous charges  and Rs.8,159/- as previous dues which is totally   unfair   as   complainant  was never in arrears of any miscellaneous charges before the month of March-April,2014. Complainant approached OP No.3 and made him aware about the mistake in the bill. Complainant was asked to pay the bill as per electricity consumed by him after deducting the miscellaneous charges. OP No.1 to 3 had not deleted the amount and again issued bill for the month of May-June, 2014 in which Rs.9,055/- was added under the head of previous dues and Rs.10,822/- under the head miscellaneous charges pending to be paid.  The complainant is not  in arrears of any dues to be paid as amount of Rs.9,055/- has been wrongly added in the bill for the month of March-April, 2014 and has not been deleted and again added in the bill for the month of May-June, 2014 under the head previous dues. OP No.3 is threatening that the electricity connection will be disconnected if the total bill amounting to Rs.11,170/- including the amount is not paid. OP be directed to issue fresh bill after deleting the amount under the head of miscellaneous charges in the electricity bill for the month of March-April,2014 and the amount wrongly added in the bill for the month of May-June, 2014 under the head previous dues and the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed. Hence this complaint. 
3.              On notice, OP filed  joint contested written statement taking routine preliminary objections; the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant is guilty of suppressing the true and material facts  and has not come to this  Forum with clean hands; Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. On merits, it is specifically  admitted to the extent that the OP No.3 had issued electricity bills to complainant of Rs.9,110/- for the months of March- April 2014. In fact, as per the policies of the P.S.P.C.L all the electro- Mechanical Metres were replaced by Electronic meter under the above said policy of PSPCL. The electric meter of the complainant was also replaced vide M.C.O. No.165/96964 dated 28-8-2012 and the  new meter was installed in place of old one on 28-8-2012, as such, OP No.3 had been sending the electricity bills to the complainant on the average basis of consumption of units of electricity. Further replied that  the average is taken on the basis of last six bills of the same period of  previous years for issuing the average bills to the consumer. In the present case also  the first average bill of October 2012 was issued of 170 units against the 317 units consumed. Similarly the electricity bill 2012 was sent of 117 units against the actual consumption of 162 units,bil1 for Apri1,2013 was sent of 120 units against the actual consumption of 171 units, bill of June, 2013 was sent of 76 units against the actual consumption of 367 units,bill for August, 2013 was sent of 71 units against the actual consumption of 444 units, bill of October, 2013 was sent of 74 units against the actual consumption of 410 units and bill of December,2013 was sent to consumer for 70 units against actual consumption of 204 units,thus in this way Rs.8,159/- were worked out to be paid by the complainant to the OP for the difference between the bills of units sent to complainant and the actual consumption of the units. Rest of all the allegations made in the complaint were denied being wrong and baseless and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 
4.             Both the parties wanted to lead evidence  to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. C-1 and closed the evidence.
5.         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh Nijjar Ex. OP-1  and closed the evidence by order. 
6.         We have heard  learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.
7.          Ld.counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has received electricity bill for the month March-April,2014 to the tune of Rs.9,110/- in which electricity consumed during that period was near about 500 units  and OP without issuing any show cause notice to the complainant had wrongly added Rs.9,004/- as miscellaneous charges and Rs.8159/- as previous dues in the said bill which is totally unfair as complainant was never in arrears of any amount before the month of March-April,2014. On receiving the said bill complainant approached OP NO.3 who assured that amount wrongly added under the miscellaneous charges will be deleted, then he again received bill for the month of May-June,2014 in which an amount of Rs.9,055/-was added under the head previous dues and Rs.10,822/- under the head of miscellaneous charges pending to be paid. Therefore, there is deficiency  of service  on the part of OP. 
8.          Counsel for the OP has argued that OP No. 3 had issued electricity bills to complainant of Rs.9,110/- for the months of March, April 2014. Further argued that as per the policies of the P.S.P.C.L all the electro-Mechanical Metre were replaced by Electronic meter under the above said policy of P.S.P C.L and electric meter of the complainant was also replaced vide M.C.O. No.165/96964 dated 28-8-2012 and the  new meter was installed in place of old one on 28-8-2012 as such, OP No.3 had been sending the electricity bills to the complainant on the average basis of consumption of units of electricity and the average is taken on the basis of last six bills of the same period of  previous years for issuing the average bills to the consumer. Lastly, argued that there is no deficiency in service on their part and complaint liable to be dismissed. 
9.         We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. As per the policies of the PSPCL all the electro mechanical meters were replaced with electronic meter on 28.8.2012 and    meter of the complainant was also replaced vide aforesaid MCO dated 28.8.2012 and Rs.8,159/- were worked out to be paid by the complainant to the OP for the difference between the bills of units sent to complainant and the actual consumption of the units. 
10.          Counsel for the OP has failed to show if any notice was issued to the consumer before overhauling his account and demanding the impugned amount from him.  In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajji Bai 2009(1)CLT 526 it has been held by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Para 5 of the order which states that:
“Admittedly, in this case demand has been made by the opposite parties on the basis of objection raised by the Audit party. The opposite parties have placed on record the documents containing estimate of the additional demand made Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6. It is clear from the material placed on record that the opposite parties have not cared to follow the relevant instructions contained in Para Nos.2 and 3 of the Sales Circular No.27/96 which read 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”.
The above instructions leave no manner of doubt that the opposite parties were duty bound to supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the above stated requirement which the opposite parties have not complied with in this case”. 
11.        We further draw support from a judgment passed by our own Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh, in a case reported in 2004(1) CPC 567 (PSEB Vs. Kuldip Singh)  para 4 of the order of which is as follows. 
“No notice was given to the complainant by the audit party before giving the report and the report is one sided.  We all, thus of the opinion that OP has no lawful right to recover the amount of Rs.16,140/- and Rs.1640/- from the complainant. The complainant paid the amount only under threat of disconnection. Hence, he is entitled to refund the amount. The point is decided accordingly”.
12.           Moreover, the counsel for the complainant has brought to our notice an instruction no.124.1 of the Punjab State Supply Regulations which is as follows:
124.1 There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some  of the dues relating to previous month/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/Load or Demand Surcharge pointed out by internal Auditor/detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the Board 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  should be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges should not be clubbed in the current bills of the consumer". 
13.          So from the aforesaid instruction,  and from the law laid down in the above cited authorities, it is clear that before over-hauling the account or demanding any amount on account of audit objection, notice is required to be given to the consumer.  In the present case no such notice is proved to have been given to the complainant before overhauling  his account and raising impugned demand on the basis of objections of the audit party. Consequently, the impugned demand  cannot be held to be legal and valid.
14.          In view of the above discussion, complaint is partly accepted and the impugned demand of Rs. 8,159/- added in the bill for month of March- April, 2014 under the head of previous dues is set-aside. Amount if deposited by the complainant be refunded forthwith besides payment of Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The compliance be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which  OP shall be liable  to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,159/- from the date order till realization and  proceedings u/s 27 CPA shall be initiated against the OP. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.
Announced.
19.03.2015

                              (Naveen Puri )
                                                         President 

        (Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary)    (Mrs. Sushma Handoo) 
                      Member                                  Member 

MK