Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/69

Karamjit kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

23 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

                                                                    C. C. No :                   69 of 2020

       Date of Institution :     09.03.2020

                                                                    Date of Decision :       23.06.2022

Karamjit Kaur aged about 65 years wife of Chand Singh resident of Guru Hargobind Nagar, Chahal Road By-Pass, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Faridkot, Tehsil and District  Faridkot.                                  

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

cc no.- 69 of 2020

Present:      Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Raj Kumar Gupta, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                         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 illegal demand of Rs.73,190/- raised vide bill dt 17.02.2020 for 859 units and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she is having domestic supply electric connection bearing a/c no 3000428460 with sanctioned load of 3.03 KW running in her premises and she has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards her. It is submitted that meter of the complainant was changed in June, 2019 and new meter was installed in respect of which she received bill dated 21.10.2019 for the period from 14.06.2019 to 21.10.2019 for 4365 units for Rs.57,250/-. Bill was very excessive and her meter was running fast. Complainant moved an

cc no.- 69 of 2020

application before OP-2 to check the meter and to correct the bill as meter was showing excessive reading, but no action was taken. Complainant again visited their office and moved application dated 30.11.2019 requesting them to check the meter and to correct his bill. OP-2 received the Meter Challenge Fee and after few days her meter was changed with new one and complainant was told that her defective meter would be sent to M E Lab for checking and action would be taken after that, but till date her meter has not been checked and on 17.02.2020 complainant received bill for 859 units for Rs.73,190/-in which Rs.64,185/-were of previous bill. On receiving the same, complainant immediately approached OP-2 and requested them to get deposited the current bill as old meter challenged by her was not checked by OPs in M E Lab, but OP-2 refused to accept the current bill amount and threatened to disconnect her electric connection, if he fails to deposit the entire amount in time. Complainant made several requests to OPs to get deposited the current bill, but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony and tension to her for which she has prayed seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.64,185/- for 859 units

cc no.- 69 of 2020

raised by them vide bill dated 17.02.2020 and has also prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                           Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 16.03.2020, 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 wherein took preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is averred that domestic connection in question is in the name of complainant. She is irregular in making payment of bills which is clear from chronology annexed. It is admitted that meter of complainant was defective in 2019, it was replaced in April/2019 and new meter was installed in its place and bill dated 21.10.2019 was issued rightly for 129 days as per consumption of power. It is further admitted that she gave application dated 30.11.2019 for defective meter and job order for device replacement was issued on 18.12.2019. Alleged defective meter was sent to M E Lab, Moga where after checking, it was reported by M E Lab that working of

cc no.- 69 of 2020

the meter was correct. It was found working correctly and therefore, bill dated 17.02.2020 for Rs.73,320/-containing arrears of previous as well as current financial year was sent to complainant as she never bothered to pay the bills in time. There is no illegality in bill dated 17.02.2020 issued by them. It is further averred that complainant neither approached any competent authority of answering OPs nor filed any written complaint or representation before the committee constituted to decide any dispute at the division, circle or zone level. He has unnecessarily dragged them in present litigation. However, on merits Ops have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same averments as taken by them in preliminary objections. It is further reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                     Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-4 and closed the same.

 

cc no.- 69 of 2020

6                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Faridkot Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-4 and then also, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7                            We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the affidavits, evidence and other documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                             From the careful perusal of documents and evidence placed on record and after going through the arguments advanced by complainant counsel, it is observed that grievance of complainant is that amount of Rs.64,185/-, charged by Ops vide bill dated 17.02.2020 as arrears, is highly excessive, illegal and is unlawful as nothing is due against bills. It is further submitted that no detail or prior notice for arrears was ever given to her by OPs. As per complainant, her meter was changed in 06/2019 and she received bill dated 21.10.2019 for the period from 14.06.2019 to 21.10.2019 for 4365 units for Rs.57,250/-. Complainant moved an application for checking the meter and to correct the bill, but no action was taken. She again moved application dated

cc no.- 69 of 2020

30.11.2019 for checking the meter and to correct his bill. After receiving Meter Challenge Fee, OPs changed meter with new one and said that it would be sent to M E Lab, but till date siad has not been checked. On 17.02.2020 complainant received bill for 859 units for Rs.73,190/-in which Rs.64,185/-were added as arrears. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs did not get deposited current bill and also refused to correct the same, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the contrary, plea taken by OPs is that complainant is very irregular in clearing bills. Defective meter of complainant was replaced with new one in April/2019 and bill dated 21.10.2019 was issued to her for 129 days as per consumption of power. Said alleged defective meter was sent to M E Lab, Moga where after checking, it was found working correctly and therefore, bill dated 17.02.2020 for Rs.73,320/-containing arrears of previous year as well as current financial year was sent to complainant as she never bothered to pay the bills in time. There is no illegality in bill in dispute dated 17.02.2020 issued by them. There is no deficiency in service and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is  made.

9                                      Ld Counsel for complainant further contended that OPs did not give any prior notice before adding previous arrears in bill dated

cc no.- 69 of 2020

17.02.2020. Even OPs did not provide any detail for charging said arrears. 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 regulation  of Supply Code is reproduced hereunder:

Payment of Arrears not Originally Billed :  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

cc no.- 69 of 2020

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.

10                          As per Supply Code regulations of PSPCL, 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 notice or bill giving any detail and facts for which they demanded this amount.

11                             The complainant further put reliance on citation 2016 (2) Consumer Law Today 429 titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Others Vs Dinesh Sharma, wherein it is held that Electricity-Sundry charges can not be charged without show cause notice to complainant. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (g) electricity-Sundry charges added in electricity bill of complainant-Held-No show cause notice issued to the complainant before imposing penalty-OPs have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant. In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency in service-Consumer can ask the service

cc no.- 69 of 2020

provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case. Para 7-The appellants have failed to show any notice issued to the complainant before imposing the penalty. Our Hon’ble High Court has also opined in Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is required before imposing the penalty and an order about person who was likely to be affected thereby. In the present case, the OPs have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant. In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the electricity Act and it is deficiency in service. Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case.

 12                                            The Ld Counsel for complainant argued that without giving separate notice or bill giving detail of the amount charged, the OPs can not claim this amount from complainant and in the present case, the OPs did not issue any prior notice or bill for the amount charged by them as arrears. Even not intimation or letter was sent to complainant for checking of meter in M E Lab. Meaning thereby, checking in ME Lab was not done in the

cc no.- 69 of 2020

presence of complainant or his representative. It is mandatory for OPs to send notice to complainant while doing checking of meter in M E Lab and it was required to be done in his presence. But in present case, no such notice or letter was sent to complainant asking him to come present in ME Lab which was to be done in his presence.

13                             As per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not charge any amount of previous dues or arrears without giving any supplementary bill or notice giving complete detail of charges and also giving copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied. They cannot demand the arrear in the current bill as sundry charges and in the present case, the OPs have failed to produce any evidence or document which proves that they issued any supplementary bill or notice giving complete and full detail of the amount charged by them as arrears of consumption as alleged by them.

14                              Therefore, from the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Ops have not followed the proper procedure to recover the arrears as alleged by them as per their own regulations which amounts to deficiency in service. We are fully convinced with the arguments and case law

cc no.- 69 of 2020

produced by complainant and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs cannot recover the impugned charges from the complainant without giving any notice and detail thereof. OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.64,185/-which is demanded by them from complainant on account of arrears vide bill dt 17.02.2020 and for the period in dispute, OPs can charge the consumption charges corresponding to previous year consumption record. If any amount of Rs.30,000/-is deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 16.03.2020 of this Forum, then that amount be also adjusted in the successive bills. 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 71 and 72 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 Commission

Dated : 23.06.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc no.- 69 of 2020

Karamjit Kaur    Vs   PSPCL

 

Present:      Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Raj Kumar Gupta, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Commission

Dated : 23.06.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member