Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/347

Kamlesh Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

11 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :       347

Date of Institution : 28.11.2016

Date of Decision :   11.07.2017

 

Kamlesh Kumari aged about 58 years w/o Sh Lal Chand r/o Street No. 3, New Cantt Road, Faridkot 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 City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Faridkot.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

              Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, 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 correct bill dt 25.11.2016 for Rs.1,61,490/- 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. GT-31/0190 (old) No. 3000506978 (new) running in her premises taken on lease from Punjab Wakf Board and previously, it was on lease with Charanjit Singh on whose name the present connection in question is running. The lease order is registered in the name of complainant and she has been using the electric connection and is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that previously, complainant received a bill dt 1.11.2016 for 27.09.2016 to 1.11.2016  for Rs.12,375/- and thereafter complainant received the bill dt 25.11.2016 for the period 1.11.2016 to 25.11.2016 for 420 units for Rs.1,61,490/- showing Rs.1,58,380/-as arrear of current year, which is very excessive. In bill dt 25.11.2016, amount of arrears should not have been shown as previous bill was for Rs.12,375/-, but in present bill current year arrears are shown as for Rs1,58,380/- and thus, demand raised by Ops is illegal and unlawful. 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 29.11.2016, 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 complainant is not their consumer as connection in question is issued in the name of Charanjit Singh and no information regarding change of consumer is given nor complainant has applied for change of name. No A & A form is ever submitted by complainant, nor have he deposited any security fees for this purpose and there is no bilateral contract between complainant and OPs. Complainant has not complied with the necessary formalities and rules and regulations of PSPCL required for using the power and thus, he is not the consumer of OPs. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that bill for the period 29.09.2016 to 1.11.2016 for Rs.12,375/- was issued correctly. It is admitted that bill which was issued on 25.11.2016 was for 420/-units and in this bill arrear of Rs.1,58,380/- was added as due to failure of sap system, correct bill for December, 2014 to November, 2016 could not be issued. The correct bill was issued on 21.11.2016 for 748 days showing consumption of 25833 units for the period 9.01.2015 to 1.11.2016 for the old reading 3256 units and new reading 28104 units. It is further averred that due to failure of sap system, large number of bills could not be issued correctly. The correct bill from December 2014 to November 2016 was prepared to give benefit of concession. Total units were divided to give due concession to consumer and after adjusting the amount already paid, correct bill was issued. 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 9 and closed the same.

6                                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-8 and closed the evidence.

7                               The ld Counsel for complainant argued that he is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. GT-31/0190 (old) No. 3000506978 (new) running in her premises taken on lease from Punjab Wakf Board and previously, it was on lease with Charanjit Singh on whose name the present connection in question is running. The lease order is registered in the name of complainant and she has been using the electric connection and is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that previously, complainant received a bill dt 1.11.2016 for 27.09.2016 to 1.11.2016  for Rs.12,375/- and thereafter complainant received the bill dt 25.11.2016 for the period 1.11.2016 to 25.11.2016 for 420 units for Rs.1,61,490/- showing Rs.1,58,380/-as arrear of current year, which is very excessive. In bill dt 25.11.2016, amount of arrears should not have been shown as previous bill was for Rs.12,375/-, but in present bill current year arrears are shown as for Rs1,58,380/- and thus, demand raised by Ops is illegal and unlawful. 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. Complainant has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses besides the main relief.

 

 

8                              To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of  consumer and he is not their consumer as connection in question is issued in the name of Charanjit Singh and no information regarding change of consumer is given nor complainant has applied for change of name. No A & A form is ever submitted by complainant, nor have he deposited any security fees for this purpose and there is no bilateral contract between complainant and OPs. Complainant has not complied with the necessary formalities and rules and regulations of PSPCL required for using the power and thus, he is not the consumer of OPs. OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that bill for the period 29.09.2016 to 1.11.2016 for Rs.12,375/- was issued correctly. It is admitted that bill which was issued on 25.11.2016 was for 420/-units and in this bill arrear of Rs.1,58,380/- was added as due to failure of sap system, correct bill for December, 2014 to November, 2016 could not be issued. The correct bill was issued on 21.11.2016 for 748 days showing consumption of 25833 units for the period 9.01.2015 to 1.11.2016 for the old reading 3256 units and new reading 28104 units. It is further averred that due to failure of sap system, large number of bills could not be issued correctly. The correct bill from December 2014 to November 2016 was prepared to give benefit of concession. Total units were divided to give due concession to consumer and after adjusting the amount already paid, correct bill was issued. 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. 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.

9                                            We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

10                                                     From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that amount of Rs.1,61,490/- raised by Ops vide bill dated 25.11.2016 is highly excessive, illegal and is unlawful and nothing is due towards him. On the other hand Ops assert that they have charged amount as per rules and regulations and on the basis of difference of consumption units for which complainant has not paid the bill. They argued that bill for the period 29.09.2016 to 1.11.2016 for Rs.12,375/- was issued correctly. It is admitted that bill which was issued on 25.11.2016 was for 420/-units and in this bill arrear of Rs.1,58,380/- was added as due to failure of sap system, correct bill for December, 2014 to November, 2016 could not be issued. The correct bill was issued on 21.11.2016 for 748 days showing consumption of 25833 units for the period 9.01.2015 to 1.11.2016 for the old reading 3256 units and new reading 28104 units. It is further averred that due to failure of sap system, large number of bills could not be issued correctly. The correct bill from December 2014 to November 2016 was prepared to give benefit of concession. Total units were divided to give due concession to consumer and after adjusting the amount already paid, correct bill was issued. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally.

11                                  So far as objection of OPs that connection in question stands issued in the name of Charanjit Singh and no application for change of name of connection in question has been given by anyone and as such, complainant is not the consumer of OPs. Complainant has specifically pleaded in para no. 1 of complaint that complainant has taken the premises on lease from Punjab Wakf Board, where connection in dispute is running and earlier this premises were on lease with Charanjit Singh son of Narinder Singh in whose name the connection in question is issued. The lease deed has already been registered in the name of complainant and copy of same is Ex C-9. The complainant has been using said connection being lease of Punjab Wakf Board and has also been paying all the bills for consumption to OPs and as such, complainant is the consumer of Ops. Similar question had arisen before Hon’ble  State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh in Joginder Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 1999 (2) CLT 134, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh had held that not only the actual person, who had hired the services of the OPs is to be consumer entitled to claim relief under the Consumer Protection act, but also a beneficiary of such a contract of hiring services of the OPs. In present case also, the complainant is using the electricity from the electric connection in question being its beneficial user. Therefore, the complainant falls within the definition of consumer, as provided under Section  2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   

12                                                Now, it is the admitted case of the parties that complainant is the consumer of Ops having domestic connection in his premises. It is further admitted that Ops issued bill dated 25.11.2016 for Rs.1,61,490/- in which Rs.1,58,380/- were added as arrears of current year. The version of Ops is that earlier they issued the wrong bill to the complainant and many other customers due to failure in sap system. Admittedly, the billing system of OPs called Sap failed and was not recording the true consumption and the bill was not issued correctly by OPs themselves. Ops failed to produce any evidence on record to prove that for which period their billing system called Sap failed and how they calculated the amount in question. Whereas as per Rules and Regulations of PSPCL in case the meter found defective then, account of consumer will be overhauled on the basis of consumption of corresponding period of previous year. The relevant regulations of PSPCL given in section 21.04 (g) (ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 vide notification no.PSERC/Secy/Regu.31 dated June, 29, 2007 are reproduced as hereunder:

“The account of a consumer will be overhauled for the period a defective meter remained at site and for the period of direct supply, on the basis of energy consumption of the corresponding period of the previous year after calibrating for the changes in load, if any. In case the average consumption for the corresponding period of previous year is not available then, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicted in para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous/succeeding year.

12                                        In the instant case, the average consumption for the corresponding period of the previous year must be available with the Ops, so in view of aforementioned section 21.4 (g) ( ii) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, the consumer will be tentatively billed for the consumption to be assessed in the manner indicated in Para-4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of previous year.

13                                     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted and the impugned demand raised by Ops from complainant vide bill dated 25.11.2016 is set aside and quashed. Ops are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.40,000/-deposited by complainant with Ops in compliance of order dt 29.11.2016 passed by this Forum in subsequent bills. However, the Ops are at liberty to charge the complainant for the disputed period by overhauling his account on the basis of actual consumption in the corresponding period of the previous year. 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 : 11.07.2017

                  

Member                                  President               (P Singla)                   (Ajit Aggarwal)