DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.102 of 01-03-2011 Decided on 29-07-2011
Manjit Singh son of Sh. Jagdev Singh, sole proprietor of M/s Sewak Agro Industries, Bhokhra, Tehsil & District Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Chief Engineer, Opposite Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Goniana, Tehsil & 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. Sandeep Baghla, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. J.D.Nayyar, 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 Electricity Connection bearing account No.B93BK 440793N under NRS category and has been paying the bills regularly. The complainant received a bill No.59551 dated 18.10.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,12,710/- from the opposite parties. The complainant approached the opposite parties who conveyed that the meter will be got checked from competent authority and accordingly the meter was removed from the premises of the complainant. The meter was not got checked from the competent authority much less ME Lab within the statutory period of 15 days by the opposite parties. The opposite parties instead of complying with the said statutory obligations, had disconnected the electricity supply to the connection of the complainant. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1,54,793/- vide receipt No.24 dated 16.11.2010 under protest. Thereafter, an another bill No.79847 dated 04.12.2010 had been issued by the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.1,37,110/- including the outstanding amount of Rs.74,739/- and Rs.40,000/- has been added as Sundry Charges. The complainant had again approached the opposite parties and requested them to set aside and to correct the previous bill dated 18.10.2010 as well as bill dated 04.12.2010 but they failed to accede to the request of the complainant. The complainant has challenged the said demand on various grounds that the complainant has already deposited Rs.1,54,793/- which has been duly entered in the account of the complainant and an endorsement to this, has also been made by the officials of the opposite party on the bill dated 18.10.2010; the average meter consumption is about 3000 to 4000 units per month. The meter has not been got checked by the opposite parties from the competent authority till date; no basis of the said demand has been furnished nor there is any such provision for charging the said amount. No period of the said demand has been mentioned in the impugned bill; no opportunity of being heard has been ever afforded to the complainant before raising the said demand. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the electricity meter of the complainant had been burnt. As the complainant moved an application, the concerned J.E. made a report on the same and accordingly, after getting the requisite amount deposited, the electricity meter of the complainant was changed with new one vide MCO No.27/78832 dated 06.01.2009 effected on 15.01.2008. The removed meter was duly packed in the Cardboard box and sent to the ME Lab for checking. Thereafter, the complainant had been issued letter Nos.183 dated 19.01.2009 and 289 dated 27.02.2009 to come present in the ME Lab but he failed to come present as such, the final notice No.436 dated 10.02.2009 was issued to the complainant, asking him to come present in the ME Lab on 16.02.2009 for getting the electricity meter checked in his presence. The said meter was duly received by one Mr. Sunil, representative of the complainant but he did not opt and come present in the ME Lab and as such, the electricity meter was checked in the ME Lab on 16.02.2009 in his absence. Paper seals No.8/02 and 8/03 which had been affixed on the Cardboard Box were removed and the meter was taken out the Cardboard box. On checking, it was found that the complainant had intentionally burnt the meter and as such, this act of the complainant amounted to theft of energy. The checking report was made and was signed by the responsible officers of the opposite parties. Since, the above act of the complainant amounted to Unauthorized Use of Electricity and theft of energy, as such, the complainant was issued a provisional order of assessment No.5329 dated 27.08.2009 for a sum of Rs.1,82,260/- which had been calculated as per rules as per L x H x D x F formula. The complainant had been asked to deposit the amount within 7 days or file objections, if any, within 15 days but he neither made the payment nor filed any objections as such, the demand made vide provisional assessment has become final. The complainant had again been issued a letter No.1306 dated 03.08.2010 making the payment of the said demand but he failed to make the payment of the same. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the complainant was defaulter and has not deposited the payment as some electricity bills vide cheque No.109095 of State Bank of Patiala and cheque No.616762 of Oriental Bank of Commerce but the same were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant had written a letter No.1847 dated 13.10.2010 informing him, regarding the same and had asked to make the payment within 4 days from the issuance of the said letter. Thereafter, another cheque No.109106 dated 04.02.2010 issued by the complainant was again dishonored due to insufficient funds. The complainant is habitual of committing theft since another case titled Jagdev Singh Vs PSPCL with regard to Account No.GN17/0354 is also pending before this Forum which is again with regard to theft of energy. 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 received a bill No.59551 dated 18.10.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,12,710/- for connection bearing account No.B93BK 440793N issued by the opposite parties. He is holding the said connection under NRS category. The complainant approached the opposite parties to inquire about the said demand, the opposite parties told the complainant that the meter will be got checked from the competent authority and accordingly the meter was removed from the premises of the complainant but the opposite parties have failed to comply with the mandatory provisions for removing, packing and sealing of the same. The complainant has further alleged that the meter was not got checked from the competent authority i.e. ME Lab within the statutory period of 15 days by the opposite parties. The opposite parties instead of complying with the statutory obligations, had disconnected the electricity supply to the connection of the complainant. The complainant under compelled circumstances, had to deposit the said demand raised through bill vide receipt No.24 dated 16.11.2010. On depositing of the impugned amount raised through bill to the tune of Rs.1,54,793/-, the electricity supply was restored and the complainant was assured that the necessary corrections in the bill will be done and excess amount will be refunded. An another bill No.79847 dated 04.12.2010 had been issued by the opposite parties whereby a demand of Rs.1,37,110/- has been raised which include the outstanding amount of Rs.74,739/- and Rs.40,000/- has been added as Sundry Charges in the said bill. The complainant again approached the opposite parties for getting the corrections in the previous bill dated 18.10.2010 and bill dated 04.12.2010 but the opposite parties have failed to accede to the request of the complainant and threatened him to disconnect the electric supply to the connection of the complainant. The complainant has further submitted that the demand raised through memo No.79847 for Rs.1,37,110/- is illegal and void and not binding on the complainant and has challenged the said amount on various grounds that the complainant has already deposited Rs.1,54,793/- which has been duly entered in the account of the complainant and an endorsement to this effect has also been made by the officials of the opposite party on the bill dated 18.10.2010. Despite receiving the amount of Rs.1,54,793/-, the opposite parties have raised a demand of Rs.1,37,110/- without giving any reason, the amount of Rs.74,739/- has been wrongly demanded and Rs.40,000/- has been allegedly added in the impugned bill without any basis. The average consumption of the previous bills of the complainant is about 3000 to 4000 units per month but the demand has been raised without any basis. No opportunity of being heard was provided to the complainant, no show cause notice has been issued to the complainant before raising the impugned demand which is violation of the principles of natural justice. The complainant has further submitted that he is consumer u/s 2(i)(d) of the 'Act' as he has been selling the generator sets for earning her livelihood and for self employment. 6. On the other hand, the opposite parties have submitted that the electric meter of the complainant had been burnt as reported by him through an application. The concerned J.E. made a report on the same and accordingly, after getting the requisite amount deposited, the electricity meter of the complainant was changed with new one vide MCO No.27/78832 dated 06.01.2009 effected on 15.01.2008. The removed meter was duly packed in the Cardboard box and sent to the ME Lab for checking. The complainant had been issued letter Nos.183 dated 19.01.2009 and 289 dated 27.02.2009 to come present in the ME Lab but the complainant did not come present in the ME Lab and as such, a final notice No.436 dated 10.02.2009 was issued to the complainant, asking him to come present in the ME Lab on 16.02.2009 for getting the electricity meter checked in his presence. The said meter was duly received by one Mr. Sunil, representative of the complainant. Despite receiving the final notice, he did not opt and come present in the ME Lab as such, the electricity meter was checked in the ME Lab on 16.02.2009 in his absence. Paper seals No.8/02 and 8/03 which had been affixed on the Cardboard Box were removed and the meter was taken out from the Cardboard box and on checking, it was found that the complainant has intentionally burnt the meter and as such, this act of the complainant amounted to theft of energy. The checking report was made and was signed by the responsible officers of the opposite parties. Accordingly, the complainant was issued a provisional order of assessment No.5329 dated 27.08.2009 making a demand of Rs.1,82,260/- which had been calculated as per rules and as per LxHxDxF formula. The complainant had been asked to deposit the amount within 7 days or file objections within 15 days. The complainant has not filed objections as such, the demand raised through provisional order of assessment has become final and the complainant is liable to make the payment of the demanded amount. The complainant had again issued a letter No.1306 dated 03.08.2010 making the payment of the said demand but he failed to make the payment of the same. The opposite parties have admitted that the complainant had made the payment of some electricity bills vide cheque No.109095 of State Bank of Patiala and cheque No.616762 of Oriental Bank of Commerce. The same were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The opposite parties had written a letter No.1847 dated 13.10.2010 informing him, regarding the cheques having being dishonored and had been asked to make the payment within 4 days from the issuance of the said letter. Thereafter, another cheque No.109106 dated 04.02.2010 issued by the complainant, was again dishonored due to insufficient funds. The opposite parties have further submitted that the complainant is habitual of committing theft since another case titled Jagdev Singh Vs PSPCL with regard to Account No.GN17/0354 is also pending before this Forum which is again with regard to theft of energy. The opposite parties have further submitted that the connection of the complainant is under NRS category as such, the same is being used for commercial purposes and does not fall within the definition of the 'Act'. The meter had been got checked in the ME Lab after providing sufficient opportunity to the complainant to come present in the ME Lab and when he failed to come present, his electricity supply has been disconnected. The amount has not been deposited under protest rather the same has been deposited voluntarily by the complainant. The amount demanded is not excessive. No assurance of refund of the amount, had ever been given to the complainant. The amount of Rs.1,37,110/- pertains to the electricity consumption bills and not on account of theft which the complainant has failed to pay and the cheques issued by him with regard to the same had been dishonored due to insufficient funds. The electricity connection is liable to be disconnected in case of non-payment of the outstanding amount. The said amount has been duly incorporated into the statement of account. The amount of Rs.1,37,110/- is included in the amount of Rs.1,54,793/- as per statement of account. The cheque of Rs.40,000- issued by the complainant was dishonored and the said amount was added in his account. 7. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 04.12.2010 in which the amount of Rs.40,000/- has been shown as sundry charges. The complainant has deposited Rs.1,54,793/- vide Ex.C-4 and the opposite parties have duly endorsed on the bill that this amount has been deposited in the account No.B93BK440793N. The opposite parties have produced in their evidence Ex.R-5 i.e. checking report. In this ME Lab report, it has been mentioned that the meter has been got burnt intentionally by the complainant. Further, a perusal of Ex.R-6 which is the consumption data shows that on 11/2010, the amount chargeable from the complainant was Rs.1,43,090/- and the complainant deposited Rs.1,54,793/- on 16.11.2010. Further, a perusal of Ex.R-6 shows that the bill was not prepared and the account statement shows the minus of Rs.17,683/- which means, the complainant has deposited Rs.17,683/- more with the opposite parties. 8. The opposite parties have submitted that during checking, it was found that the complainant had intentionally burnt the meter but nothing is clear from this checking report that how this meter was intentionally burnt by the complainant. Moreover, the amount of Rs.1,54,793/- has already been deposited by the complainant and he has deposited Rs.17,683/- excess. 9. A perusal of record placed on file shows that an amount of Rs.1,54,793/- has already been deposited by the complainant. The complainant is not liable to pay anything to the opposite parties as he has already deposited the said amount. The opposite parties have failed to establish the case of theft of electricity against the complainant. 10. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,500/- as cost and compensation and the amount raised through bill No.59551 dated 18.10.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,12,710/- and bill No.79847 dated 04.12.2010 for a sum of Rs.1,37,110/- is hereby quashed. The complainant has already deposited Rs.46,000/- for seeking stay vide order dated 03.03.2011 of this Forum, the opposite parties are directed to refund the said amount to the complainant if deposited by him. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced 29.07.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
