DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
Complaint No : 75 of 2020
Date of Institution : 16.03.2020
Date of Decision : 23.08.2021
Naib Singh aged about 75 years s/o Gurdial Singh, r/o Village Kameana, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
...Complainant
Versus
- S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., City Sub Division, Faridkot, District Faridkot.
- J.E. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., City Sub Division, Faridkot, District Faridkot.
- The Chairman, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala.
.........O.P.s
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
(Now, under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019).
Quorum: Sh. Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President,
Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.
Present: Sh Naib Singh/Complainant in person,
Sh Mohan Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for O.P.s.
cc no.75 of 2020
ORDER
(Amrinder Singh, President)
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/O.P.s seeking directions to them to correct the bill dated 17.02.2020 for Rs.36,620/-and to restore his electric connection and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is an old person of 75 years and he lives with his little grand daughter who studies in standard fifth. Further submitted that he is a small farmer and depends upon Old Age Pension of meagre amount of Rs.750/-. It is submitted that complainant is having domestic electric connection bearing account no.3000423594 for long time and there are no big appliances like A.C, Motor or Iron in his house, rather there are only two fans and two bulbs in his house and his routine monthly bill that he used to receive was only for Rs.200-250/- which was being paid by him from time to time. Complainant has
cc no.75 of 2020
alleged that for last few months, he was receiving huge bills for which he kept depositing some amount and on request by complainant to OP-2, he was assured to correct the same. It is further submitted that complainant received bill dated 17.02.2020 for Rs.36,620/- for account no.65911208171115023, due date for payment of which was 03.03.2020. Complainant approached OP-1 several times with request to correct the bill dated 17.02.2020, but they did not rectify the same. Meanwhile, on 03.02.2020, O.P.s disconnected the electric connection of complainant and took away the meter of complainant in his absence. They have no right to disconnect his electric connection without giving any notice. During those days, exams of her granddaughter were going on and disconnection of power by O.P.s has caused huge loss to her study and moreover, complainant is also a heart patient and due to harassment caused by O.P.s, anything wrong could happen with him. Several requests made by complainant before O.P.s, but it bore no fruit and all this has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has prayed for accepting the
cc no.75 of 2020
present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses, besides the main relief. Hence, the present complaint.
3 Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 17.03.2020, 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 they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that electric connection to complainant was released on 7.08.2014 with sanctioned load of 0.920 KW and bills are being sent to him on consumption basis and his meter is recording consumption correctly, but complainant has not been making payment of consumption charges regularly. He makes payment in parts. It is brought before the Commission that if payment is not made within due period, consumer is liable to pay TDCO fee alongwith interest at the rate of 1.5 % per month on gross unpaid amount 15 days after due date. It is further
cc no.75 of 2020
averred that complainant paid Rs.4000/-on 02.01.2018 against bill for Rs.6952/- and Rs.2954/-still due towards him and thereafter, he did not pay regular bills. It is admitted that they disconnected the electric connection of complainant and after receiving Rs.8000/-, it was restored on 30.03.2020. Complainant promised to pay remaining amount, but still failed to make any payment. Bills and consumption reading record from 14.08.2017 to 19.06.2020 shows the amount paid and due towards him and he has been delaying payment. It is further averred that they have rightly issued him bills as per consumption of units and complainant is liable to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.s. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.
5 Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Complainant himself tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, Ex C-2 is copy of Date Sheet for exams of his granddaughter, Ex C-3 is copy of letter written by complainant to S.D.O. PSPCL, Faridkot, Ex C-4 is copy of receipt
cc no.75 of 2020
showing Rs.8000/-deposited by complainant with O.P.s on 30.03.2020 and Ex C-5 is copy of bill dated 17.02.2020.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar Ex OP-1, Ex OP-2 account statement of complainant, Ex OP-3 is Account Display : Basic List of account of complainant, Disconnection Order dated 03.03.2020 Ex OP-4, Job Order for Device Installation Ex OP-5, document ExOP-6, consumption record & bills Ex OP-7 to Ex OP-25 and then, closed the same on behalf of O.P.s.
7 We have heard the arguments advanced by complainant as well Counsel for O.P.s and have carefully perused the record available on file.
8 From the careful perusal of evidence, documents produced by parties and arguments advanced by respective parties, it is observed that main contention of the complainant is that O.P.s sent him huge bills for no reason. From the careful perusal of record and written reply filed by O.P.s, it is observed that no clarification is
cc no.75 of 2020
brought forward by O.P.s to justify the reason that when last date for payment of bill dated 17.02.2020 was 03.03.2020, then, why they disconnected the connection of complainant much before the time given. Moreover, no prior notice for sundry charges or arrears was ever issued to complainant. Average consumption of complainant is also not very high. It is observed that no detail or explanation is put forward by ld counsel for O.P.s for charging amount of Rs.120/-in the account statement of bills prepared for every months. Amount of Rs.48/- Rs. 236/-; Rs. 15/-; Rs. 360/-; Rs. 06/-; Rs. 253-; Rs. 47/-; Rs.42/-; Rs. 46/-; Rs. 07/-; Rs. 28/-; Rs. 16/-; Rs. 307/- and several such petty amounts charged again and again in the bill issued for every month. Further it is noticed that Meter Disconnection Order is of date 03.02.2020 but it bears the signature of J.E. of Department on 02.03.2020. It is impalpable to digest that how Meter Disconnection Order was signed one day in advance than the day of its preparation which is mentioned over it as 03.03.2020. Moreover, bills prepared as per consumption of units do not match with account statement for bills produced before the Commission. These documents do not correlate with each other. On the other hand, O.P.s have nothing to
cc no.75 of 2020
contradict the contentions of complainant. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his allegations. There is no doubt that bills sent by O.P.s do not justify the reply given by O.P.s. Even connection of complainant was not disconnected in his presence.
9 It is also observed that no separate prior notice was ever issued to complainant before charging the impugned amount in current consumption bill meaning thereby no opportunity was granted to him for hearing. “Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 (As notified by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification no.PSERC/Secy/Reg.97 dated Nov.5, 2014 and published in Government of Gazette (Extra) dated November 5, 2014, the Regulation No.30.1.2 under the head ‘Details’ mandates that the bill 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 current electricity bill. The arrears would briefly indicate the nature and period of arrears alongwith calculation details of such arrears, but in
cc no.75 of 2020
present case, no prior notice was given to complainant before charging the amount in impugned bill.
10 In the light of above discussion and arguments advanced by parties and case law produced by the complainant, we are fully convinced with complainant and he has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. O.P.s are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.36,620/- alongwith interest, penalties and surcharges etc imposed upon it, vide bill dated 17.02.2020. 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 71 and 72 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 : 23.08.2021
(Parampal Kaur) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member President (Addl. Charge)
