Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/21/2019

Mohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jan 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.21 of 2019

                                                        Date of institution:  26.04.2019                         

                                                           Date of decision   :  20.01.2020

Mohan Singh, aged about 55 years, son of late Sh. Babu Singh, resident of village Tooran, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman.
2. Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. Executive Engineer/X-en, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 

…..Opposite parties

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

Capt.Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member    

                            

Present :   Sh. Harjit Singh, counsel for complainant.

                  Sh.Sumit Gupta, counsel for the Opposite parties.

ORDER

By Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                  The complainant filed the present complaint pleading that he is the consumer of opposite parties, residing in village Tooran, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, having electric connection bearing account No.3001441351, which is running in the name of his father namely; Babu Singh.  The father of the complainant has since expired and the complainant is using the said electric connection.  The complaint was regularly paying the charges till the year 2013 with regard to the electricity consumed by him through the said electric connection. The OPs stopped to issue the electricity bill in the year 2013. The complainant approached the OPs and enquired about non-issuing the electricity bill, but the OPs have not given any satisfactory reply.  Moreover, it was told by the Meter-Reader, when he visited the locality of the complainant, that it seems that the complainant, who belongs to Ramdasia Category, has been given the concession by the government by providing electricity free of costs.

                  Thereafter, in the year 2018, the OPs sent a bill dated 24.11.2018 amounting to Rs.1,80,022/- to the complainant.  After receipt of the bill, the complainant immediately approached OP No.2 and as per his advice, he filed an application before OP No.2 for remission of amount of the said bill.  But vide letter/memo No.7599 dated 26.11.2018, OP No.2 disclosed that the meter of the complainant was done as RCO due to non-issuing of bill for a long time i.e. after 25.03.2013 and the complainant has to deposit the said amount with the OPs to avoid disconnection. Thereafter, the OPs again sent bills on 20.12.2018 for Rs.1,89,030/- and on 22.02.2019 for Rs.2,03,690/- to the complainant. The complainant being a poor person is unable to deposit such a huge amount. Moreover, the mistake is on the part of the OPs, for which the complainant cannot be penalized.  The alleged claim of the opposite parties is also barred by time.  The complainant also moved an application before the Chief Engineer, PSPCL, Ludhiana on 02.04.2019 for remitting the amount of the bill and for restoration of the above said electric connection, but to no effect. The complainant alleged gross negligence, deficiency in service, carelessness and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and due to act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant suffered loss of reputation, mental tension, pain, unnecessary and uncalled harassment, for which the complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with penal interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the OPs.  Hence, this complaint for setting aside the bill dated 22.02.2019, which is illegal, null and void and barred by time. The complainant further prayed to give directions to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest on account of mental tension, pain, agony, undue and unnecessary harassment, being suffered by the complainant due to gross negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant also prayed for payment of costs, charges, expenses, counsel fee etc and any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit and proper in this present complaint in the interest of law and justice.

2.               After the service of notice upon the opposite parties, they appeared through counsel and filed written version to the complaint raising certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint;  the complainant has no legal right or cause of action to file the present complaint and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the same is misuse and abuse of the process of law. The OPs further stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties as no one has filed application for change of the name till date and also no one has informed regarding the death of Babu Singh. It is further stated in the reply that the electric connection of the consumer was checked by Sr. Executive Engineer enforcement Khanna vide checking report No.42/3765, dated 03.11.2018 and found that "electricity supply of the consumer is running but bill for the consumption was not issued from a long time". After verifying the record, Opposite parties found that the electric connection was re-connected on 25.03.2013 but bills were not issued to the consumer till date and as per reading in the meter 28114 units were consumed and a bill for the amount of Rs.1,80,022/- was issued along with notice No.7599 dated 26.11.2018 but the complaint failed to pay the same and filed the present complaint. The bills were issued on the basis of actual consumption. After denying the other averments made in the complaint the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.               In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex. CW1/A & CW2/A along with documents Ex. C-1 to C-6 and again tendered his affidavit Ex. C-7, affidavit of Shamsher Singh Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence.

4.               In rebuttal, the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Manoj Kumar SDO Ex. OP1 and true copies of documents Ex. OP-2 to OP-4 and closed the evidence.

5.               We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties and have gone through the records.

6.               Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complaint was regularly paying the charges till the year 2013 with regard to the electricity consumed by him through the said electric connection. The OPs stopped to issue the electricity bill in the year 2013. The complainant approached the OPs and enquired about non-issuing of the electricity bill, but the OPs have not given any satisfactory reply. He further argued that the mistake is on the part of the OPs, for which the complainant cannot be penalized.  The complainant also moved an application before the Chief Engineer, PSPCL, Ludhiana on 02.04.2019 for remitting the amount of the bill and for restoration of the above said electric connection, but all in vain. There is gross negligence, deficiency in service, carelessness and unfair trade practices on the part of the OPs and due to the acts and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered loss of reputation, mental tension, pain, unnecessary and uncalled harassment. The alleged demand of the Opposite parties is illegal, null and void and barred by time. In support of his contentions the Ld. counsel relied upon the judgment in case Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat(PUS), Sangrur and another in CWP No.58 of 2016 decided on 07.01.2016 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Ld. counsel also argued that no separate notice was issued to the complainant and as such, certainly demand put forth in violation of principles of natural justice because due opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the complainant before that. The Ld. counsel prayed for acceptance of the present complaint.

7.               On the other hand the ld. counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties as no one has filed application for change of the name till date and also no one has informed regarding the death of Babu Singh. He further argued that the electric connection of the consumer was checked by Sr. Executive Engineer enforcement Khanna vide checking report No.42/3765, dated 03.11.2018 and found that " electricity supply of the consumer is running but bill for the consumption has not been issued from a long time". After verifying the record, Opposite parties found that the electric connection was re-connected on 25.03.2013 but bills were not issued to the consumer till date and as per reading in the meter 28114 units were consumed and a bill for the amount of Rs.1,80,022/- was issued along with notice No.7599 dated 26.11.2018 but the complaint failed to pay the same and filed the present complaint. The bills were issued on the basis of actual consumption. The Ld. counsel prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.               The main issue involved in this complaint is that whether opposite parties are entitled to recover the amount where the opposite parties had not followed the rules and regulations and committed violation of rules and regulations of the Punjab Electricity Act 2003 ?

9.               The regulations 93.1 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, 2017 by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited states as under:-

"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 connections of the meter and unauthorized of use 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"

    

                  As per said instruction 93.1 contained in                  Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, 2017 by Punjab                    State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, Patiala, in case a bill   is

to be raised on account of defect in the metering equipment or unauthorized use of electricity etc, then separate bill has to be issued containing complete details of the charges. Copy of the relevant instructions, under which, the charges have been levied, has also to be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of the cases by established Authorities. No such separate bill shown to be sent to the complainant and nor copy of the relevant instructions under which charges to be levied, shown to be sent to the complainant and as such, there is violation of this Rule.

10.             Fora/Authorities established under law has jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to excessive billing in the case the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice, as per law laid down in case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited(BSNL) and another Vs. M.D. Imtiyaz-IV(2014) CPJ-25 ( Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). So, certainly this Forum has jurisdiction to decide the matter in question, particularly when the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice as discussed hereinafter.

11.            Violation of Regulation 30.1.2 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission(Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2014)(as came in force w.e.f.1.1.2015) even is committed in this case because instead of issue of separate notice for recovering the amount of Rs.1,80,022/- on the basis of checking report, the said amount clubbed with the electricity bill Ex.C-1 itself. That is violative of regulation 30.1.2 of these regulations of 2014, which reads as under:-

“The bill cum notice for arrears in the case of under assessment or the charges levied as a result of checking etc, shall be initially tendered separately and shall not be clubbed with the current electricity bill. The arrear bill cum notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrears with calculation details of such arrears. If the arrears are not cleared by the consumer, such arrears shall be indicated regularly in the subsequent electricity bills. However, in case arrear bill is included in the current energy bill at the first instance, the distribution licensee shall not be entitled to take any punitive action against the consumer for non payment of such arrear amount along with current energy bill.”

12.             Bill cum notice for arrears for period from year 2013 to  November 2018 ( Ex. C-2)  has not been tendered separately initially and nor bill Ex.C-1 briefly indicate the nature and period of arrears along with calculation details of such arrears and as such, certainly demand of Rs.1,80,022/- put forth in violation of regulation 30.1.2 referred above. In view of inclusion of arrear of Rs.1,80,022/- in the energy bill Ex.C-1, OPs not entitled to initiate any punitive action against the complainant for non-payment of such arrear amount in the energy bill Ex.C-1 in view of regulation 30.1.2 referred above.

13.             So, the demand of Rs.1,80,022/- claimed as sundry charges amount through composite bill Ex.C-1 liable to be quashed being violative of rules and regulations and principles of natural justice.

14.                 Even as per law laid down in case titled as M/s Kundan Mill Board and Paper Mills and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others-2014(2)Civil Court Cases-044(Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court)(DB), any internal audit objection is only an opinion and the same by itself will not be a justification for raising of supplementary demand in initial bill. So, keeping in view this proposition of law in mind and the fact that audit note is just an opinion of audit party, recovery on the basis of such audit note alone cannot be effected until due opportunity of hearing to the complainant afforded for showing cause that claimed amount is actually recoverable.

15              In the case law titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Ashwani Kumar in R.S.A. No.1865 of 1991 decided on 09.12.1992, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held as under:-

" Constitution of India, Articles 14 & 16- Punjab State Electricity Board Abridged Conditions of Supply, Clause 14(f)- Notice/Natural justice- Defect in electricity meter- Defective C.T.and P.Ts- Genuine Calculations- Normal Principle is that ever provision should be interpreted in such a manner that there is no violation of principles of natural justice- While passing any order under Clause 15 above it is incumbent upon the authorities to grant an opportunity to the consumer failing which action is bound to suffer from the vice of arbitrariness which may itself attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution- Any Public authority discharging Governmental functions have a duty to act fairly, and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is not open to act arbitrarily and raise demands for substantial amounts without even affording an opportunity of hearing or representation to the citizens- Board advised to evolve a fair and just modern procedure to meet the need of the day."

 

16.                  Moreover, as per Section 56(2) of the Punjab Electricity Act 2003 states as follow:-

" Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity".

          It is clear that opposite parties cannot recover the amount after the expiry of the period of 2 years being barred by limitation as provided under Section 56(2) of the Punjab Electricity Act 2003. In the present case the opposite parties have issued notice No.7599 dated 26.11.2018 and a bill dated 24.11.2018 for an amount of Rs.1,80,022/- for 28114 units of consumption of electricity. Hence, the opposite parties issued this bill after a period of 6 years, so it is barred by the limitation as provided under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003. The opposite parties in para No.4 of reply to the complaint admitted that, " it is submitted that the electric connection of the consumer was checked by the Sr. Executive Engineer Enforcement Khanna, vide checking report No.42/3765 dated 03.11.2018 and found that ' Electricity  supply of the consumer is running but bill for the consumption has not been issued for long time' after verifying the record the opposite parties found that electric connection was reconnected on 25.03.2013 but bills were not issued to the consumer till date and as per reading in the meter 28114 units were consumed and a bill for an amount of Rs.1,80,022/- was issued along with notice No.7599 dated 26.11.2018".  So in view of the admission by the opposite parties for the issuance of bill dated 24.11.2018 regarding period starting from 25.03.2013 is definitely time barred. The judgment as relied upon by the complainant in case Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat(PUS), Sangrur and another in CWP No.58 of 2016 decided on 07.01.2016 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court is fully applicable in the present complaint.

17.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed  and opposite parties are directed to withdraw the bill dated 24.11.2018 ( Ex. C-1) for an amount of Rs.1,80,022/- along with penalties, surcharge and interest imposed upon it by the opposite parties, as notice No.7599 dated 26.11.2018 is set aside. We also find that complainant is entitled to lumpsum amount of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Opposite parties on account of compensation and litigation charges. The complaint is allowed accordingly. Copies of the order be issued to the parties free of cost and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

18.              The complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period of time as provided under 3^rd Proviso of Section 13 (3A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because the post of President of this Forum remained vacant since 16.09.2018 and the Post of Lady Member remained vacant since 02.03.2017 and the undersigned President is now doing the additional duty for performing quasi judicial duties only for two days a week.

Pronounced                                                                                                    

Dated: 20.01.2020