Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/163

Mukhvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

29 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    C. C. No :              163 of 2018

Date of Institution :      28.09.2018

Date of Decision :        29.05.2019

Mukhvir Singh aged about 41 years s/o Piara Singh, r/o Near Water Works, Village Matta, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, DS Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Jaitu.                     

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh  Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, 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

cc no.- 163 of 2018

withdraw the illegal demand of sundry charges of Rs.77,346/- raised vide bill dt 12.09.2018  and for further directing them to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic supply electric connection bearing a/c no 3000279478  running in his premises and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him on account of consumption charges. It is submitted that complainant received a bill dated 12.09.2018 for Rs.77,790/- in which amount of Rs.77,346/- is charged as sundry charges, which is very excessive and illegal and complainant is not liable to pay the same. It is further contended that these charges are raised without giving any prior notice or detail thereof. On receiving the bill containing sundry charges, complainant approached Ops and requested them to withdraw the excessive demand of sundry charges, but they did not pay any heed to hear his requests and they flatly refused to correct the same. OP-2  rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, 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 him for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and surcharges and prayed for compensation for harassment and mental

cc no.- 163 of 2018

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 3.10.2018, 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 admitted that bill in question dated 12.09.2018 for Rs.77,790/-was issued by them in which Rs.77,346/-are charged as sundry charges. it is averred that vide Job Order Service Replacement dated 21.10.015, meter of complainant was replaced and new meter with initial reading of two units was installed in its place. old  meter of complainant was sent to ME Lab vide store challan no.127 dated 6.11.2015 and during checking it was found that meter of complainant was burnt and ME Lab found reading of 35720 units. While checking the account of complainant, Audit Party pointed out that amount up to reading of 25729 is charged from complainant and difference between 35720-25729 = 9991 units is to be charged. This amount of Rs.77,339/- for 9991 units is correctly charged and is still due towards complainant. When complainant approached them, they clearly explained all detail to him and also gave challan and half margin issued by audit party to him. Detail of all this amount was clearly given to complainant and present amount is  correctly charged as per rules and

cc no.- 163 of 2018

regulations and complainant is liable to pay the same. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint 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 Ex C-3 and closed the same.

6                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Kulwinder Kumar Sharma as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-9 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant and Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

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 case of the complainant is that complainant is having  electric connection issued by Ops and he is the consumer of OPs and has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. The

cc no.- 163 of 2018

grievance of complainant is that amount of Rs.77,346/-for sundry charges raised by Ops vide bill dated 12.09.2018 is highly excessive, illegal and is unlawful as nothing is due towards him. It is further submitted that no detail or prior notice for sundry charges have ever been given to him by OPs. On the other hand plea taken by OPs is that this amount is charged on the basis of difference in amount as declared by Audit Party. It is further argued that bill dated 12.09.2018 for Rs.77,790/-was issued in which Rs.77,346/-are charged as sundry charges. Vide Job Order Service Replacement dated 21.10.015, meter of complainant was replaced and new meter with initial reading of two units was installed in its place.  His old  meter was sent to ME Lab where on checking it was found that meter of complainant was burnt and ME Lab found reading of 35720 units. While checking the account of complainant, Audit Party pointed out that amount up to reading of 25729 is charged from complainant and difference between 35720-25729 = 9991 units is to be charged. This amount of Rs.77,339/- for 9991 units is due towards complainant. They gave all detail regarding amount charged to him and also gave challan and half margin issued by audit party to him. This amount is  correctly charged as per rules and regulations and complainant is liable to pay the same. All the other allegations are denied with prayer to dismiss the complaint.

9                                               Ld Counsel for complainant further contended that OPs did not give any prior notice before adding sundry charges in bill dated 12.09.2018. Even OPs did not provide any detail for

cc no.- 163 of 2018

charging sundry charges. 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:

cc no.- 163 of 2018

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.

 10                                 He argued that as per regulation 93.01, 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 bill giving any detail and facts for which they demanded this amount. Further as per rule 93.2, OPs cannot demand any sum from any consumer after a period of 2 years from the date when such amount becomes due, but as per version of OPs, the amount relates to year 2015 that is more than two years back and thus, they cannot demand this amount from complainant being its time barred as per their own regulations.

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-

cc no.- 163 of 2018

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 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 sundry charges. Moreover, amount charged pertains to year 2015 and as per rules they cannot raise any demand for charges which belong to the period of more than two years back.

 

 

cc no.- 163 of 2018

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 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 cannot recover the impugned charges from the complainant without giving any notice and detail thereof. OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.77,346/- which is demanded by them from complainant on account of sundry charges vide bill dt 12.09.2018.  If any amount of Rs.27,000/- is deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 3.10.2018 of this Forum, then that amount be also adjusted in the subsequent bills. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the

cc no.- 163 of 2018

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 : 29.05.2019                                                                              

(Param Pal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                           President