Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/235

Lovely Bagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

07 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        235

Date of Institution :  22.08.2016

Date of Decision :      7.03.2017

Lovely Bagi @ Reeta aged about 56 years w/o Vinod Kumar Bagi s/o Ram Parsad Bagi r/o Street No.3 ½ , Bhan Singh Colony, Ferozepur Road, 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, DS City Sub Division, PSPCL, 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.

 

 

ORDER

 (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 withdraw the sundry charges for Rs.38,982/-charged in bill dt 4.08.2016 and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having electric connection bearing a/c no. DS-81/0444 (old), No.3000393360 (new) running in his premises in the name of Jai Singh from whom complainant purchased the house vide registered sale deed and after purchase, he has been using the same and he has been regularly paying all the bills as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is submitted that complainant received bill dt 4.08.2016 for Rs.56,670/-, in which amount of Rs.38,982/-is charged as sundry charges without giving any detail or prior notice, which is illegal. On receiving this bill, complainant immediately reached the office of OPs and made request to them to correct this bill as it was excessive and also requested to get deposited from him the current bill, but instead of correcting the same and listening his request, OPs threatened to disconnect his electric connection if he fails to pay the amount charged in bill in time, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice 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. Hence, this complaint.

3                      Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 29.08.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                    Opposite parties filed written statement wherein took preliminary objections that complainant is not their consumer as connection in question is still running in the name of its previous owner and without the consent of Board, a consumer can not transfer or part with the benefit of his agreement with the Board. In case of transfer of a connection to the name of someone else, an application should be made to the local office of board accompanied by consent of existing consumer for change of name. Moreover, in the event of transfer of property, the transferee will submit an application on A & A form alongwith letter of consent of previous owner or proof of ownership of premises and in case the consent of previous owner for security can not be produced, the applicant would deposit security at prevalent rates and he would also be liable to pay outstanding dues if any of previous owner, but in present case, complainant has not complied with rules and regulations of PSPCL and as such, he is not the consumer of OPs. there is a bilateral contract between original consumer and PSEB, but complainant has not entered into any bilateral contract with them. However, on merits, they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant is not their consumer as bill is sent in the name of Jai Sigh. It is admitted that amount of Rs.38,982/- is charged as sundry charges. The code of meter was D and due to this average bill was being charged on the basis of reading of previous year for the same month 5/12 to 7/12 and 9/12. The average for 5/12 to 7/12 was 3038 units and reading for 9/12 was2928  units and detail of all this charged amount has already been given to complainant. It is submitted that there is no illegality and complainant is bound to pay for the power consumed by him. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally as the  amount is charged as per rules and regulations on the basis of average reading for power consumed by complainant. 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 affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 3 and closed the same.

6                       In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh AEE as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-7 and closed the evidence.

7                       The ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that he is having electric connection bearing a/c no DS-81/0444 (old), No.3000393360(new)running in his premises in the name of Jai Singh from whom complainant purchased the house vide registered sale deed and after purchase, he has been using the same and he has been regularly paying all the bills as and when received and nothing is due towards him. Complainant received bill dt 4.08.2016 for Rs.56,670/-, in which amount of Rs.38,982/-is charged as sundry charges without giving any detail or prior notice, which is illegal. On receiving the same, complainant immediately reached the office of OPs with request to correct the bill as it was excessive and also requested to get deposited from him the current bill, but instead of correcting the same and listening his request, OPs threatened to disconnect his electric connection if he fails to pay the amount charged in bill in time, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and it has caused great harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

8                          To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and stressed mainly on the point that complainant is not their consumer as connection in question is still running in the name of its previous owner and without the consent of Board, a consumer can not transfer or part with the benefit of his agreement with the Board. In case of transfer of a connection to the name of someone else, an application should be made to the local office of board accompanied by consent of existing consumer for change of name. Moreover, in the event of transfer of property, the transferee will submit an application on A & A form alongwith letter of consent of previous owner or proof of ownership of premises and in case the consent of previous owner for security can not be produced, the applicant would deposit security at prevalent rates and he would also be liable to pay outstanding dues if any of previous owner, but in present case, complainant has not complied with rules and regulations of PSPCL and as such, he is not the consumer of OPs. There is a bilateral contract between original consumer and PSEB, but complainant has not entered into any bilateral contract with them. OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant is not their consumer as bill is sent in the name of Jai Sigh. It is admitted that amount of Rs.38,982/- is charged as sundry charges. The code of meter was D and due to this average bill was being charged on the basis of reading of previous year for the same month 5/12 to 7/12 and 9/12. The average for 5/12 to 7/12 was 3038 units and reading for 9/12 was2928  units and detail of all this charged amount has already been given to complainant. It is submitted that there is no illegality and complainant is bound to pay for the power consumed by him. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally as the amount is charged as per rules and regulations on the basis of average reading for power consumed by complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9                        The case of the complainant is that he has an electric connection at  his residence bearing a/c no. DS-81/0444 (old), No.3000393360(new) in the name of Jai Singh from whom complainant purchased the house vide registered sale deed and since purchase, he has been using the same and paying all the bills as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received bill dt 4.08.2016 for Rs.56,670/-, in which amount of Rs.38,982/-is charged as sundry charges without giving any detail or prior notice, which is illegal. In reply OPs asserted stressing mainly on the point that complainant is not their consumer as connection in question is still running in the name of its previous owner and without the consent of Board, a consumer cannot transfer or part with the benefit of his agreement with the Board. In case of transfer of a connection to the name of someone else, an application should be made to the local office of board accompanied by consent of existing consumer for change of name. Even, in the event of transfer of property, the transferee will submit an application on A & A form alongwith letter of consent of previous owner or proof of ownership of premises and in case the consent of previous owner for security can not be produced, the applicant would deposit security at prevalent rates and he would also be liable to pay outstanding dues if any of previous owner, but in present case, complainant has not complied with rules and regulations of PSPCL and as such, he is not the consumer of OPs. There is a bilateral contract between original consumer and PSEB, but complainant has not entered into any bilateral contract with them and thus, he is not their consumer and even bill is sent in the name of Jai Sigh. It is admitted that amount of Rs.38,982/- is charged as sundry charges. The code of meter was D and due to this average bill was being charged on the basis of reading of previous year for the same month 5/12 to 7/12 and 9/12. The average for 5/12 to 7/12 was 3038 units and reading for 9/12 was2928  units and detail of all this charged amount has already been given to complainant. It is submitted that there is no illegality and complainant is bound to pay the same. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally as the  amount is charged as per rules and regulations on the basis of average reading for power consumed by complainant and they have right to recover the same.

 

10                        So far as objection of the opposite parties that the connection in question stands in the name of Jai Singh and no  application for change of name of the connection in question has been  given by anyone and as such the complainant is not consumer of the opposite party. The complainant has specifically pleaded that connection in question is running in the name of Jai Singh son of Harjinder Singh from whom, she has purchased the house vide registered sale deed dated 5.02.2008 and after purchasing the house, the said connection is being used by complainant and she has been regularly paying all the bills of electricity and as such, she is the consumer of OPs. Similar question  had arisen before the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, in Joginder Singh Versus 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 opposite party, 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 opposite party. In the 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 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

11                     Ld counsel for complainant argued that OPs have wrongly and illegally charged this amount from complainant. There was no amount due towards complainant. The amount charged as sundry charges in bill dt 4.08.2016 is quite wrong. Moreover, as per their  own regulations, OPs can not charge the dues relating to previous period or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment etc or pointed out by Internal Audit or Authorised Officer without issuing a separate bill giving complete detail of the charges levied. Copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied should also be supplied to consumer but in the present case, no separate bill or notice giving complete detail of the amount charged or period of the amount ever issued to the complainant. So, as per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not demand this amount and can not add this as sundry charges  in current bill. The 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 regulations is reproduced hereunder:

Payment of Arrears not Originally Billed :

93.1 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 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.

93.2 Limitation:

Under Section 56(2) of the Act, no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two year 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. As per OPs, they charged the amount in question as arrears for the period from 5.12.2012 and 9/2012 i.e much prior to two years and it is beyond the period of limitation.

12                        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 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 appellants 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.

 13                    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 sundry charges.

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

15                         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 can not 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.

16                          Therefore, from the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Ops have not followed the proper procedure to recover the arrear 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 produced by complainant and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to withdraw the demand for amount of Rs.38,982/-charged by them as sundry charges. OPs are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.12,000/-deposited by complainant with them in compliance of the order passed by this Forum on 29.08.2016 in the future 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 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 : 7.03.2017                             Member                  President                                                                      (P Singla)               (Ajit Aggarwal)