DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.62 of 2017

                                                 Date of institution:    27.01.2017                                               Date of decision   :    22.01.2019

Neem Chand Sharma Son of Sh.Sadhu Ram Sharma R/o House No. 386, Swastik Vihar, Pabhat, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

1 PSPCL through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala

2.PSPCL through its XEN Sub Division Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali.

3.PSPCL through its SDO Sub Division Zirakpur . Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali.

                                                                       ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:    Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for complainant.

                Sh. Pankaj Sharma, cl for the OPs.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

                  Complainant received domestic electricity consumption bill  for the month of November to December, 2016 of amount of Rs. 1,78,870/-, despite the fact that consumption was of 662 units only. This bill dated 09.01.2017 was received regarding  account no. Z74ZK271332X. After going through the details, the complainant came to know as if amount of Rs. 1,74,293/- has been added under head “Sundry Charges”. On approach, officials of the OP on 11.01.2017 reduced the amount to Rs. 90,112/- without assigning any reason. Information was  given to the complainant on 11.01.2017 as if amount of Rs. 88,758/- has been wrongly added in the bill and remaining amount is for temporary connection which was got earlier released by the earlier owner for construction purposes. That temporary connection bears no. T-2762. The complainant purchased the house on 26.09.2014 from Smt. Neera vide registered sale deed and thereafter he applied for fresh connection by deposit of security amount of Rs. 13,840/-  on 07.10.2014. OP granted new connection and thereafter issued regular bill to the complainant on 13.03.2015. The complainant approached the previous owner Smt. Neera, who delivered some receipts of the bills of temporary connection for showing as if amounts have been paid. The temporary connection  was duly surrendered on 31.10.2014. OPs cannot claim  any amount beyond period of two years and as such demand put forth by the OPs is time barred. No detail of the claimed amount of Rs. 1,78,870/- or of the demanded amount of Rs. 90,112/- has been supplied. The complainant was put to lot of mental tension and agony due to deficient services provided by the OPs in raising demand of    Rs. 90,112/- and that is why this complaint filed for seeking waiver  of amount of Rs. 90,112/-. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs. 1 lacs and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/- more claimed.

2.                In reply, it is pleaded inter alia as if the complaint is false and frivolous. The complainant has not   approached this Forum with clean hands because of the suppression of material and true facts.  The complaint in present form not maintainable and the OPs have been dragged unnecessarily in this litigation. The complainant is liable to pay the electricity consumption charges of previous owner, who consumed electricity in the premises during installation of temporary electricity connection no.T-2762. Notice of intimation to the complainant through bill dated 09.01.2017 has been issued after internal audit report vide half margin no.1466 dated 12.08.2015 for the premises owned by the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant holds electricity connection and demand of Rs.  1,78,870/-  earlier put forth, but on settlement the same has been reduced to Rs. 90,112/-. The complainant has been requested to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs. 90,112/- after deduction of arrear/interest on previous outstanding bills by way of adjusting/settling the amount of previous owner. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint.

3.            Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex CW1/1 along with documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-15 and thereafter his counsel closed the evidence.

4.         On  the other hand counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex OP1/1 of Sh. Amanpreet Singh Mavi, Sub Divisional Engineer  along with documents Ex OP/1 to Ex Op/4 and thereafter closed the evidence.

5.          Written arguments submitted by the OPs but not by the complainant. Oral arguments of counsel for the parties heard and records gone through.

6.         From  the perusal of the pleadings, written arguments and submitted affidavits, it is made out that earlier temporary electricity connection bearing no. T-2762 was in the name of Neera W/o Sh. Davinder Kumar. The same is also reflected in the PDCO dated 02.08.2013 Ex C-5; receipt of payment dated 02.08.2013 Ex C-6; electricity consumption bill dated 14.10.2013 Ex C-7; receipt of payment dated 21.11.2013 Ex C-8;  bill dated 13.12.2013 Ex C-9; bill dated 14.01.2014 Ex C-10; bill dated 12.02.2014 Ex C-11; bill dated 11.05.2014 Ex C-12 and in the bill cum receipt Ex C-13. The complainant purchased the house earlier owned by Ms. Neera through registered deed Ex C-2 dated 26.09.2014 and thereafter he applied for electricity connection and the electricity connection was installed in his name in October , 2014. Dispute in that respect is not raised through written arguments or the submitted affidavit Ex OP1/1 of representative of the OPs.

7.   Perusal of E-Payment System Record Ex C-4 shows that electricity consumption for 149 days during period from 15.10.2014 to 13.03.2015 was of 662 units  because the  old reading is shown as 1 unit and new as 663 units in Ex C-4 itself. As the electricity connection in question got installed by the complainant in the house in question in his name after deposit of security of    Rs. 13,840/- through receipt Ex C-3 dated 07.10.2014 and as such certainly submission advanced by counsel for the complainant has force that the complainant consumed only 662 units during 149 days of period mentioned in Ex C-4 as referred above. It is the claim of the complainant through submitted affidavit and pleadings that he had been paying electricity consumption bills regularly thereafter.  Dispute in that respect is not raised by the OPs either through written reply or submitted affidavit Ex OP1/1 or through written arguments and as such certainly after going through bill Ex C-1 dated 09.01.2017, it is made out that demand of Rs. 1,78,870/- was put forth from the complainant for electricity consumption in the premises in question.  That amount of Rs. 1,78,870/- includes amount of Rs. 1,74,293/- on account of sundry charges is a fact borne from contents of bill Ex C-1 itself. Plea taken in the complaint and submitted affidavit of the complainant Ex CW1/1 is fully believable that when he approached the officials of the OPs on 11.01.2017, then after reducing the amount of Rs. 88,758/-  from the demanded amount, Rs. 90,112/- was claimed from the complainant. Endorsement in that respect exists on the bill Ex C-1 with date 11.01.2017 and even the plea taken in the written reply as well as affidavit Ex OP1/1 is on those lines.

8.      The OPs have been unable to produce on record any document to show as to how waiver of amount of Rs. 88,758/- was done on 11.01.2017. Even no document produced on record to show the details of the claimed sundry charges of amount of Rs. 1,74,293/- through bill Ex C-1. Rather the amount of sundry charges has been clubbed in the current electricity consumption charges in bill Ex C-1 dated 09.01.2017 in violation of the rules and regulations of the OPs.

9.           It is vehemently contended by counsel for the OPs that demand has been put forth on the basis of the internal audit report of the OP Department.  Reliance for this purposes is placed on documents Ex OP/1 to Ex OP/4 each. There is nothing on the record to suggest that before claiming the amount on the basis of internal audit report, a separate show cause notice giving details of the claimed amount through internal audit report, was given to the complainant.  So the complainant virtually has been called upon to pay the amount of sundry charges or the demanded amount of Rs. 90,112/- without affording him any opportunity of hearing. Present is a case in which demand of hefty amount put forth not only in violation of principles of natural justice, but even in violation of rules and regulations of PSPCL itself.

10.            As per the law laid down in case titled as  M/s Kundan Mill Board and Paper Mills and another versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others, 2014(2) Civil Court Cases-044 ( Hon’ble Punjab and 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. Ratio of this case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case because here internal audit report made the basis for claiming the sundry charges of hefty amount through initial bill Ex C-1 itself. No copy of this internal audit report shown to be sent to the complainant and nor the details of the demanded sundry charges ever supplied to the complainant and further keeping in view the fact that the complainant was not divulged of the reasons of reducing the amount of Rs. 88,758/- as aforesaid,   it has to be held that demand put forth in an arbitrary and illegal manner in violation of principles of natural justice.

11.         Even as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in case of Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Daljit Singh 2007(2) CLT-163, the rules of natural justice require that an opportunity  of hearing must be given to the  consumer, while raising demand on the basis of assessment done by  the officials of PSPCL on the basis of the report of the ME Lab.  That opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the  complainant in this case as aforesaid and as such violation of principles  of natural justice is committed by the OPs while putting forth demand of Rs. 90,112/-.

12.        Perusal of regulation 30.1.2 reveals that charges levied as arrears for correcting the mistake not to  be clubbed with the current electricity bill .Rather, arrear bill- cum- notice has to be provided separately by giving brief details of the nature and period of arrears along with calculation details of such arrears. Such bill- cum- notice not claimed or shown to be sent by the OPs to the complainant before putting forth the demand in question and as such also violation of regulation 30.1.2 committed by the Ops.

13.      As per Instructions 93.1 contained in Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, First Edition updated till 31.03.2011 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 Consumer Forums. 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, violation of this rule also committed by the OPs while putting forth the demand in question through a composite current bill referred above. Even regulation 124.1 of Electricity Supply Instructions provides that when an amount to be charged from the consumer as arrears on account of under assessment or for correction of the records or for rectification of mistake, then separate bill should be issued by giving complete details of the levied charges. This regulation 124.1 specifically prohibits the charges being clubbed in the current bill of the consumer. However, impugned amount has been clubbed in the current bill and as such, violation of this regulation 124.1 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007 also is there.

14.              Latest Regulations 30.1.2 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007 (effective from 1.1.2015) (as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No. PSERC/Secy./Reg 97 dated November 5, 2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette (Extra) dated November 5, 2014) reads as under:-

“30.01.2:-   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 along 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 the current energy bill”.

15.              Consumer Fora has fullest jurisdiction to settle the dispute relating to excessive billing, in case, the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulation as well as principles of natural justice, as per law laid down in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and another Vs. MD. Imtiyaz-IV (2014)CPJ-25     (Maghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). So, jurisdiction of this Fora is not barred, particularly when the demand has been raised in violation of principles of natural justice and rules and regulations of the OPs itself because separate bill had not been issued and nor show cause notice shown to be issued for calling upon the complainant to explain as to why the impugned amount be not recovered from him.  

16.           So looking from all angles, demand of Rs. 90,112/- being raised in violation of rules and regulations of PSPCL and principles of natural justice, liable to be quashed but with rider that in case the OPs to charge any amount of sundry charges or arrears, then a separate show cause notice had to be issued by them to the complainant for giving him an opportunity of hearing. As by hefty demand of Rs.90,112/- the complainant was put to lot of mental tension and agony and even dragged in this litigation and as such complainant entitled for compensation for mental tension and agony and also to litigation expenses.

17.              As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed with direction to the OPs not to put forth demand of Rs.90,112/- claimed through bill Ex.C-1 or of any other amount as sundry charges except by way of issuing show cause notice and giving details of the amounts to be claimed as sundry charges or arrears and by affording due opportunity of hearing to the complainant.  Demand of Rs.90,112/- or of claimed sundry charges through bill Ex.C-1 is hereby quashed. This quashing will not absolve the complainant from paying the regular electricity consumption charges based on actual consumption of electricity. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against  OPs.  Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

January 22, 2019.

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member