Punjab

Barnala

CC/173/2014

Municipal Council - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.Singla

12 Jan 2018

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/173/2014
 
1. Municipal Council
Municipal Council, Dhanaula through its Executive officer
Barnala
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. PSPCL
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Head office The Mall Patiala through its Chairman. 2. Punjab State Power Corporation Distribution Division Dhanaula Road Barnala through its Senior Executive Engineer .3. Punjab State Power Corporation Sub Division, Dhanaula through its Assistant Executive Engineer
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sukhpal Singh Gill PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. MS. VANDNA SIDHU MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 12 Jan 2018
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.


 

Complaint Case No : 173/2014

Date of Institution : 05.08.2014/07.09.2016

Date of Decision : 12.01.2018

Municipal Council, Dhanaula through its Executive Officer.

…Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Distribution Division, Dhanaula Road, Barnala through its Senior Executive Engineer.

3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division, Dhanaula through its Assistant Executive Engineer.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present: Sh. N.K. Singla counsel for the complainant.

Sh. S.K. Kotia counsel for the opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President

2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member

ORDER

(MS. VANDNA SIDHU MEMBER)

As per complaint No. 173 of 2014 complainant has filed the present complaint on the grounds that the complainant council is a consumer of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. under Account No. SL-23-0001 Y for providing regular street light to the public of Dhanaula and five electric meters No. 2612756, 1181010, 735433, 2327000 and 779108 under Sub Accounts No. 001 to 005 in respect of said electric connection have been installed at Dhanaula.

2. It is alleged that bill No. 53 dated 26.10.2012 on account of consumption of 828 units for an amount of Rs. 10,210/- including sundry charges amounting to Rs. 320/- payable up to 9.11.2012 on line and 12.11.2012 in cash in respect of electric connection of the complainant was received by the complainant council and the payment thereof was made by the complainant council through cheque on 6.11.2012 vide receipt No. 380. After that bill No. 54 dated 25.11.2012 for consumption of 4197 units for an amount of Rs. 33,900/- including sundry charges amounting to Rs. 40/- payable up to 10.12.2012 on line and 12.12.2012 in cash in respect of electric connection of the complainant was received by the complainant and payment thereof was made by the complainant council through cheque on 7.12.2012 vide receipt No. 156. Thereafter bill No. 55 dated 25.12.2012 of 3303 units for an amount of Rs. 27,400/- payable up to 9.1.2013 on line and 11.1.2013 in cash was received and payment thereof was made by the complainant through cheque on 7.1.2013 vide receipt No. 17. Thereafter, bill No. 56 dated 25.1.2013 for consumption of 1702 units for an amount of Rs. 4,08,670/- including sundry charges and allowances amounting to Rs. 3,92,465/- payable up to 8.2.2013 on line and 11.2.2013 in cash was received by the complainant. However, no detail of sundry charges and allowances was given in the said bill. So, the complainant approached the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and requested to supply the details of sundry charges and allowances demanded in the bill and not to charge the amount of sundry charges and allowances and correct the said bill but opposite parties No. 2 and 3 assured the complainant that the amount demanded as sundry charges and allowances in the said bill would be adjusted in the next bill.

3. It is further submitted that thereafter bill No. 57 dated 25.2.2013 for consumption of 858 units for an amount of Rs. 4,59,670/- including sundry charges and allowances amounting to Rs. 21/- and arrears amounting to Rs. 4,49,387/- payable up to 12.3.2013 on line and 14.3.2013 in cash was received by the complainant but neither the detail of the sundry charges and allowances was given in the said bill nor the amount of sundry charges and allowances demanded in the previous bill No. 56 was adjusted as assured by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. Therefore, complainant again approached opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and requested to supply the details and to correct the said bill by deducting the amount of Rs. 3,92,465/- but to no effect. Rather the opposite parties threatened that in case the complainant failed to deposit the entire amount including sundry charges and allowances and arrears, electric connection of the complainant would be disconnected. So, the complainant filed a complaint on 12.3.2013 before this Forum which was registered as Consumer Complaint No. 75/2013 and the same was allowed vide order dated 26.12.2013 directing the opposite parties to provide the details of sundry charges and allowances demanded by them vide bill No. 56 dated 25.1.2013. Vide this order the opposite parties further ordered/directed that after providing the details of the sundry charges and allowances they will reconsider their demand and will issue fresh demand notice to the complainant council as per law and the complainant was given the option to approach this Forum at Barnala again if it is not satisfied to the demand notice.

4. That in pursuance of order dated 26.12.2013 the opposite party No. 3 sent a letter bearing memo No. 19 dated 9.1.2013 alongwith photocopy of the alleged calculation sheet requiring the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 3,92,576/- within 15 days without reconsidering their demand and without passing any speaking order. After receipt of said letter the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 and requested to reconsider the aforesaid demand as ordered by this Forum and to pass a speaking order but opposite party No. 3 issued a fresh bill No. 69 dated 24.2.2014 for an amount of Rs. 8,26,014/- without passing any speaking order as directed by this Forum and without affording any opportunity of being heard to the complainant. Therefore, complainant again approached the opposite parties and requested them to comply with the order dated 26.12.2013 of this Forum and to pass a speaking order but with no result, rather on 3.3.2014 opposite parties No. 2 and 3 threatened the complainant that in case the complainant failed to make the payment the electric connection of the complainant of street lights including the office of the complainant would be disconnected. It is further submitted that it caused a great hardship and irreparable loss to the complainant and as such the complainant filed a fresh complaint before this Forum which was registered as Consumer Complaint No. 50/14 on 19.3.2014 which was decided on 17.4.2014. Vide order dated 17.4.2014 this Forum directed the opposite parties to settle the dispute by referring the same to the Disputes Settlement Committee within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the said order and the complainant council was granted permission to approach this Forum again if it desired so. It is further submitted that in violation of the order of the Forum dated 17.4.2014 vide which the opposite parties were directed to refer the dispute of complainant to the settlement committee the Additional Superintending Engineer Distribution Division City Barnala vide its letter No. 8020 dated 20.6.2014 asked the complainant to submit its petition. So, the complainant council presented a Petition before the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee of opposite parties at Patiala and the Additional Superintending Engineer Distribution Division City Barnala vide its letter dated 8250 dated 26.6.2014 sent a reply alongwith two calculation sheets and the petition was adjourned to 9.7.2014. The entire record before the Committee was produced on 9.7.2014 at Patiala and the complainant pointed out the discrepancies in the amounts paid by the complainant.

5. The said calculation sheet reads as.-

Billing Period Amount paid Amount shown in Cycle in Rs. calculation sheet in Rs.

11 1/2012 30,290/- 15,195/-

12 2/2012 3,25,460/- 15,967/-

1 3/2012 22,230/- 35,148/-

2 4/2012 44,530/- 14,757/-

3 5/2012 20,970/- 11,072/-

4 6/2012 16,890/- 29,912/-

5 7/2012 38,330/- 6,725/-

6 8/2012 14,140/- 10,962/-

7 9/2012 36,020/- 5,108/-

8 10/2012 10,210/- 25,895/-

9 11/2012 33,900/- 20,379/-

10 12/2012 27,400/- 10,535/-

11 1/2013 Nil bill not having been 5,311/-

issued

12 2/2013 Nil bill not having been 4,103/-

issued

1 3/2013 77,090/- 2,252/-

2 4/2013 6,763/- 21,253/-

3 5/2013 29,800/- 18,555/-

4 6/2013 25,431/- 8,159/-

5 7/2013 1,491/- 1,592/-

6 8/2013 4,678/- 3,790/-

7 9/2013 8,511/- 16,689/-

8 10/2013 23,145/- 33,263/-

9 11/2013 42,263/- 35,491/-

10 12/2013 44,669/- 26,916/-

6. However the said Committee vide its order dated 9.7.2014 received by the complainant on 18.7.2014 wrongly held that the notice was issued by the opposite parties by correctly deducting the amounts paid by the complainant. The Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee of the opposite parties wrongly held that the counsel for the complainant admitted that the amount on account of MMC is payable by the complainant and it was satisfied. It is further submitted that the opposite parties are not legally entitled to recover the said amount on the basis of the alleged circular which is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the opposite parties were directed to settle the dispute of the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of order dated 17.4.2014 but the Dispute Settlement Committee of the opposite parties disobeyed/violated the direction issued by this Forum vide order dated 17.4.2014.

7. It is further submitted that at that time the opposite parties installed the meters outside the premises of general public electric wires of certain areas for street lights were removed by the contractor of the opposite parties and no connection in the said areas were reconnected. As such the complainant council moved applications to the opposite party No. 3 on 7.1.2013 and 24.1.2013 but with no result. It is further submitted that as such no electric supply is being made available to the said areas and number of streets are still under dark. This fact was also brought to the knowledge of the Zonal Disputes Settlement Committee of the opposite parties but the Committee intentionally and with malafide intention has not mentioned about the same in its order. As such the complainant council is not at all satisfied with the orders passed by the Zonal Disputes Settlement Committee and as such the said order is liable to be set aside by this Forum.

8. It is further submitted that after receipt of the order dated 9.7.2014 of the Zonal Disputes Settlement Committee on 18.7.2014, the complainant requested the opposite parties to declare that said order dated 9.7.2014 is illegal and against facts and further not to recover the amount of Rs. 8,26,014/- mentioned above but with no result. Rather on 25.7.2014 the opposite party No. 3 issued letter No. 1201 for depositing an amount of Rs. 8,26,014/- to the complainant council. Thus it is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

Relief.-

The opposite parties may be directed to

1) Set aside the order dated 9.7.2014 passed by the Zonal Dispute Settlement Committee, Patiala of the opposite parties.

2) Not to recover the amount of Rs. 8,26,014/- the amount demanded vide bill No. 69 dated 24.2.2014 and letter No. 1201 dated 25.7.2014.

3) Not to disconnect the street lights electric connection of the complainant council and the electric connection of the office of the complainant council on account of non payment of the amount.

4) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment.

5) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

9. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite parties filed a written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant has concealed the material facts that the complainant is bound to deposit minimum charges as per the tariff approved by PSERC vide commercial circular CC 20/2012 and CC 23/2013 and the complainant has already been depositing MMC with the opposite parties. Further, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as this Forum cannot sit on the appeal of the orders of the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee and not the appellate court of said committee of the PSPCL. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant has taken the electricity connection in dispute for providing the street light to the public in general. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct as no cause of action has arisen to file the present complaint.

10. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the complainant has depositing the bill dated 26.10.2012, 25.11.2012 and 25.12.2012. The complainant is legally bound to deposit minimum electricity charges as per sanctioned load as per rules of the opposite parties. The complainant has a sanctioned load of 35 KW and thus minimum annual consumption of the complainant becomes 102480 units as per rules for the period from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,01,655/- for 34454 units for the said period as per the bills raised by the opposite parties. The difference of Rs. 3,92,549/- was raised in bill dated 25.1.2013 as per minimum charges which are recoverable by the opposite parties as per rules for the period from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012. Further, there is a difference of Rs. 4,83,499/- for the period from 1.1.2013 to 31.12.2013 which is due from the complainant on the basis of minimum charges after adjusting the amount deposited by the complainant. The opposite parties have served a notice No. 1219 dated 4.8.2014 amounting to Rs. 8,76,014/- i.e. Rs. 3,92,465/- for the year 2012 + Rs. 4,83,549/- for the year 2013 as arrears. The said notice has been received by Jagsir Singh the Clerk of the complainant on 4.8.2014 and signed the same in Punjabi but the complainant has not deposited the arrears amount till date. As such the opposite parties are entitled to charge 10% surcharge on the said amount from the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant is using the public funds, as such the opposite parties are entitled to charge interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date to deposit the said amount. The complainant is filed false complaints regularly only to avoid payment of electricity bills.

11. It is further submitted that earlier complainant has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,68,345/- vide receipt No. 83 dated 11.2.2011 as difference of minimum charges for the period from 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010 and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,09,356/- vide receipt No. 207 dated 9.2.2012 as difference of minimum charges for the period from 1.1.2011 to 31.12.2011 voluntarily which shows that the complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention knowing well that he is legally bound to pay the minimum electricity charges to the opposite parties. The complainant is misusing the public funds by not depositing the electricity charges. The complainant himself filed his grievance before the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee of PSPCL and said committee has already decided the matter vide order dated 9.7.2014. The complainant instead of filing the appeal against the said order before the competent authority filed the present complaint against the said orders knowing well that this Forum is not the appellate authority of the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee of PSPCL. In case the complainant do not deposit the arrears of minimum charges for the year 2012 and 2013 the opposite parties have every right to disconnect the electricity supply of the complainant. Lastly they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

12. In order to prove its case, the complainant has tendered into evidence copy of bill dated 26.10.2012 Ex.C-1, copy of receipt No. 380 Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 25.11.2012 Ex.C-3, copy of receipt No. 156 Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 25.12.2012 Ex.C-5, copy of receipt No. 17 Ex.C-6, copy of bill dated 25.1.2013 Ex.C-7, copy of bill dated 25.2.2013 Ex.C-8, copy of order dated 26.12.2013 Ex.C-9, copy of memo No. 19 dated 9.1.2013 Ex.C-10, copy of bill dated 24.2.2014 Ex.C-11, copy of order dated 17.4.2014 Ex.C-12, copy of letter No. 8020 dated 20.6.2014 Ex.C-13, copy of petition dated 25.6.2014 Ex.C-14, copy of letter No. 8250 dated 26.6.2014 Ex.C-15, copy of reply Ex.C-16, copies of two calculation sheets Ex.C-17 and Ex.C-18, copy of order dated 9.7.2014 Ex.C-19, copy of application dated 7.1.2013 Ex.C-20, copy of application dated 24.1.2013 Ex.C-21, copies of bills alongwith receipts Ex.C-22 to Ex.C-43, copy of letter No. 1201 dated 25.7.2014 Ex.C-44, copy of resolution Ex.C-45, affidavit of Surjit Singh EO Ex.C-46, affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar Singla Advocate Ex.C-47, copy of order dated 20.10.2003 Ex.C-48, copy of order dated 21.5.2008 Ex.C-49, copy of memo dated 25.10.2005 Ex.C-50 and closed the evidence.

13. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Vijay Singh Ex.OP-1, copy of calculation sheets Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3, copy of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual Ex.OP-4, copy of conditions of supply manual Ex.OP-5, copy of bill dated 24.2.2014 Ex.OP-6, copy of order Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.

14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

15. As per Ex.C-41 bill of Rs. 4,213,20/- dated 25.10.2013 was issued to complainant in which it is mentioned that arrears of Rs. 3,98,175/- is amount of arrears and lamp charges of Rs. 3888/- has mentioned. It is the bill from 15.9.2013 to 15.10.2013 and this Ex.C-41 photocopy of bill No. 65 and its account number is CL23-0001. After considering this bill this Forum is of the view that one note was enumerated by employee of opposite party under his signature that

Sir, it is requested that the bill regarding street lights excess amount of 398175 were sent to Municipal Council and in regard of it Municipal Council has filed one complaint in Consumer Forum. So that's why Rs. 23145/- is receiveable after deducting amount of Rs. 398175/- and this amount of Rs. 23145/- is receiveable till date 8.11.2013. So, report is submitted.

16. After go through the above stated noting which is written in Punjabi language this fact came in knowledge that bill of Rs. 421320/- is a wrong bill. Furthermore receipt of dated 8.11.2013 which is part of Ex.C-41 is about amount which was received by opposite parties is Rs. 23142/-. Furthermore as per Ex.C-43 one bill dated 24.12.2013 was issued in which amount of Rs. 448660/-. And this bill was verified as per undersigned by one employee and gave comment about arrears of Rs. 403991/-. Employee of opposite party gave comment on this bill about arrears as subject to CC. So, Ex.C-43 was issued to complainant about Rs. 4,48,660/- and complainant party got receipt which is part of Ex.C-43 about Rs. 44,669/- and this amount is deposited by complainant as partial amount.

17. As per complaint bill No. 56 of dated 25.1.2013 was sent to complainant and in this way sundry charges and allowances amount was specifically mentioned Rs. 392465/- and this bill is for consumption of 1702 units for an amount of Rs. 408670/-. As per complaint this is bill of duration period from 15.12.2012 to 15.1.2013. But no details of sundry charges and allowances was given in the bill. After taking in view Ex.C-5 i.e. bill No. 55 of dated 25.1.2012 against consumption of 3303 units, it was payable for Rs. 27400/- and no arrears was levied on complainant. Receipt of bill No. 55 which is part of Ex.C-5 is about Rs. 27400/-.Ex.C-3 which is bill i.e. bill No. 54 which is bill for Rs. 33900/- and date of issuing was 25.11.2012. Ex.C-4 is receipt of it. In Ex.C-3 no arrears were mentioned like this in Ex.C-5 which is bill No. 55 no arrears were mentioned in this bill. Receipt of bill No. 54 Ex.C-3 is about Rs. 33900/- but receipt No. Ex.C-6 of amount of Rs. 27400/- of bill No. 55. This Ex.C-5 is also not gives any indication about arrears or sundry charges. But Ex.C-6 which is receipt against Ex.C-5 proved that amount received of Rs. 27400/- is partial. When bill of amount of Rs. 27400/- was paid within time then why receipt was issued by opposite parties in regard of partial payment. Again it is very astonished fact that without mentioning any arrears of last bill in Ex.C-7 amount of Rs. 392465/- which is about sundry charges and allowances was mentioned in bill of Rs. 408670/-. Opposite parties failed to disclose in Ex.C-5 and another record which was brought by opposite parties during defending their case. Ex.C-8 amount of Rs. 459670/- in regard of bill No. 57 dated 25.12.2013 in which arrears were showed Rs. 449387/-.

18. After getting above stated bills complainant approached on 12.3.2013 to the Hon'ble District Forum and date of decision in complaint No. 75/2013 which is Ex.C-9. In the above stated complaint the Hon'ble above mentioned Forum that the complaint was partly allowed and order the opposite parties to provide the sundry charges and allowances demanded by opposite parties in bill No. 56 dated 25.1.2013 to the complainant. Furthermore it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Forum ordered to the opposite parties after providing the details of sundry charges and allowances, opposite parties will reconsider the demand and issued fresh demand notice to the complainant which according to the Hon'ble Forum is required under the law. Hon'ble above said Forum in complaint No. 75 of 2013 that complainant will have the option to approach this Forum again if he is not satisfied with the demand notice, in accordance with law. Ex.C-10 which is issued by opposite party No. 3 this is the letter bearing memo No. 19 of dated 9.1.2013 and photocopy of the alleged calculation sheet which is part of Ex.C-10, demanded by the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 3,92,576/- within 15 days without reconsidering their demand and without passing any speaking order. But without reconsidering the request of complainant opposite party No. 3 again issued a bill No. 69 dated 24.2.2014 for an amount of Rs. 9,63,120/- which is Ex.C-11. In this Ex.C-10 arrears were demanded by opposite parties i.e. Rs. 9,26,480/-. As per order dated 26.12.2013 it was ordered to the opposite parties to provide the details of the sundry charges and allowances demanded by the opposite parties in Bill No. 56 dated 25.1.2013 to the complainant but it is very astonished fact that in bill No. 69 arrears were demanded by the opposite parties for an amount of Rs. 9,26,480/-. As per Ex.C-12 Executive Officer Municipal Council, Barnala/ Dhanaula appeared before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala and stated on oath that opposite parties have demanded an amount of Rs. 8,26,014/- from M.C. Dhanaula as arrears for the year 2012 and 2013. The Hon'ble Forum partly allowed complaint No. 50/14 and directed to the opposite parties to settle the dispute of the complainant by referring the same to the Disputes Settlement Committee within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. Counsel of complainant appeared before Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee and produced the entire record before the committee and pointed out the discrepancies in the amounts shown as paid by the complainant council in the alleged calculation sheet i.e. Ex.C-17/Ex.OP-2 and Ex.C-18/Ex.OP-3, these two calculation sheets were produced by the counsel of complainant before the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee at Patiala but the said Committee wrongly held on 18.7.2014 that the notice was issued by the opposite parties by correctly deducting the amounts paid by the complainant council. As per the complaint and affidavit Ex.C-46 the Dispute Settlement Committee of the opposite parties disobeyed/violated the directions issued by the Hon'ble Forum vide order dated 17.4.2014. As such the complainant council reserves its right to move an application under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties and the Members of the Zonal Level Dispute Settlement Committee at Patiala for the said violation. But the Contractor of the opposite parties removed the wires of certain areas for street lights and no connection for the said areas were reconnected. Complainant party moved applications to the opposite party No. 3 on 7.1.2013 and 24.1.2013 but with no result. As such no electric supply is being made available to the complainant council in the said areas and a number of streets are still under dark on account of disconnection of electric supply to the meter installed in the said areas. This fact brought to the notice of the Zonal Dispute Settlement Committee of the opposite parties but in order of 9.7.2014 Zonal Dispute Settlement Committee of the opposite parties intentionally and with malafide intention has not mentioned about the same in its order dated 9.7.2014. So, as per the view of this Forum it is pertinent to mention here that electric wires of certain areas for street lights were removed by the contractor of the opposite parties outside the premises of general public and the order dated 9.7.2014 was silent about non providing electricity to number of streets of complainant. On 25.7.2014 opposite party No. 3 issued letter No. 1201 Ex.C-44 for depositing an amount of Rs. 8,26,014/- to the complainant council and threatened the complainant council that in case the council failed to make the payment of the said amount the electric connections of the complainant council for street light including the electric connection of the office of the complainant council would be disconnected. Complainant council brought on record Ex.C-50 which is letter of Directorate of Local Government of Punjab, Chandigarh (Account Branch) subject of Payment of Electricity Consumption charges of Street Light and other connection.

Annual minimum charges clause, which reads as, “It the total number of units consumed in the whole year (calender year) is less than it would have been if the lamps had been lit on an average of 8 Hours per night over the whole year, the Board shall charge for the difference between the stipulated units and units actually consumed at tariff rates. The units consumed in a calender year will be calculated on the basis of sanctioned load or connected load whichever is higher. The annual minimum charges are exclusive of line maintenance and lamp renewal charges. “despite the fact that electricity meter is in running condition. This action of the Punjab State Electricity Board is not in consonance with the terms on which the electricity connection was initially sanctioned. Further, instance have also come to the knowledge of Government where PSEB has demanded huge amount towards the arrears of consumption charges on the plea that in the inspection carried out by the PSEB staff, the connected load was found increased than sanctioned load.

Furthermore, it is also important to mention here that as per the Ex.C-50 i.e. Letter of Directorate of Local Government, Punjab, Chandigarh, ULBs are directed to ensure that the electricity meters of all connections may remain in running condition and the electricity consumption charges are paid to PSEB as per actual consumption of electricity. Further, if PSEB claims the arrears of electricity consumption charges towards the increase in sanctioned load, on the pretext of unilateral inspection report, the claim of PSEB may be challenged in District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. Moreover, complainant also made part of his complaint calculation sheet detail about billing cycle of 1/2012 to 12/2013.

19. It is very astonished fact that inspite of disconnecting the wires from meters of certain areas for street light were removed by contractor of opposite parties and bill of that areas were sent including arrears by opposite parties, inspite of applications were moved by complainant council to opposite party No. 3 on 7.1.2013 and 24.1.2013 Ex.C-20 and Ex.C-21 respectively. But as per Ex.C-46 i.e affidavit of E.O. Zonal Dispute Settlement Committee of the opposite parties at Patiala as per order dated 9.7.2014 did not give any result or mentioned about it inspite of pleading about this fact before the Zonal Dispute Settlement Committee.

20. Complainant/Appellant filed First Appeal against order dated 22.12.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala in which bill No. 56 of dated 25.1.2013 in respect of electrical connection for consumption of 1702 units for an amount of Rs. 4,08,670/- including sundry charges and allowances amounting to Rs. 3,92,465/- were challenged by the complainant and against the order dated 22.12.2014 one First Appeal was moved by complainant and Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh set aside the impugned order and complaint is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the same on merits.

21. In case titled PSEB Versus Jagdish Chand reported in 1998 (1) CLT-178 the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh has held that demand of arrears of consumption charges on the basis of unilateral inspection from consumer is bad and no such claim can be made unless the consumer is associated in the inspection.

22. So, as per view of this Forum bill No. 56 is without any arrears but sundry charges and allowances mentioned in this bill is Rs. 3,92,465/- but as per entire record of present file opposite parties failed to prove how and why these charges imposed on complainant in bill No. 56 whenever bill No. 55 Ex.C-5, bill No. 54 Ex.C-3, bill No. 53 Ex.C-1 these are without any arrears and sundry charges which are mentioned in Ex.C-1 sundry charges and allowances mentioned Rs. 320/-, in Ex.C-3 sundry charges and allowances mentioned Rs. 40/- and in Ex.C-5 no sundry charges and allowances are mentioned. But in Ex.C-7 i.e. bill No. 56 a huge amount of sundry charges and allowances Rs. 3,92,465/- mentioned and this amount becomes bone of contention between both the parties. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention here that opposite parties failed to rectify its bill No. 56 because as per Electricity Supply Instructions Manual Ex.OP-4 SVIII.6 Annual Minimum Charge.-

If the total number of units consumed in the whole year (calender year) are less than those which would have been consumed if the lamps had been lit on an average of 8 hours per night over the whole year, the PSPCL shall charge for the difference between the stipulated units and units actually consumed at tariff rates. The units which would have been consumed in a calender year shall be calculated on the basis of sanctioned load or connected load detected whichever is higher. The annual minimum charges shall be exclusive of line maintenance and lamp renewal charges.

After considering Ex.OP-4 when wires of street lights were removed by contractor of opposite parties and as per Ex.C-46 and as per complaint a number of streets are still under dark on account of disconnecting of electric supply to the meter installed in the said areas and about it complainant moved applications to opposite party No. 3 on 7.1.2013 and 24.1.2013. But opposite party sent bill on 25.1.2013 of duration period of 15.12.2012 to 15.1.2013 including sundry charges and allowances of Rs. 3,92,465/-. However, the opposite parties can recover the amount of actual charges of electricity used by the complainant as per bill No. 69 and opposite parties are liable to recover the sundry charges of bill No. 56 i.e. Ex.C-7 and of bill No. 69 Ex.OP-6 after giving notice to the complainant. But in the present case the opposite parties cannot give separate notice to the complainant as per Electricity Act 2002 of 71.2.2.

24. In view of above discussion present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to give notice to the complainant as per Electricity Act 2002 of 71.2.2 about Bill No. 56 dated 25.1.2013 for sundry charges of Rs. 3,92,465/- and about Bill No. 69 dated 24.2.2014 for arrears of Rs. 8,26,014/- which becomes after including sundry charges. If the complainant paid actual consumption of electricity consumed then the opposite parties can reconnect the street light electric connection of the complainant council and the electric connection of the office of the complainant council. No order as to costs or compensation. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

12th Day of January 2018


 


 


 

(Sukhpal Singh Gill)

President


 


 

(Vandna Sidhu) Member  

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sukhpal Singh Gill]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MS. MS. VANDNA SIDHU]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.