DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA.
Complaint No. 177/14
Instituted on: 13.08.2014
Decided on: 02.03.2015
Puran Chand son of Parduman Singh, Village Dhanaula Kalan, Tehsil Dhanaula, District Barnala.
…Complainant.
Versus
Asstt. Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Dhanaula-1, Sub Division, Dhanaula, District Barnala.
…Opposite party
For the complainant : Shri R.K.Jain, Advocate.
For OP : Shri R.K.Singla, Advocate.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Karnail Singh, Member
Vandna Sidhu, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Puran Chand, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment is running the atta chakki with the help of electricity connection bearing account number L23SP181499W from the OP and the bills of the electricity are being paid by him regularly. It is further averred in the complaint that in the end of year 2013, the meters of the village were shifted outside consumer premises. It is further averred that in the month of December, 2013 the meter of the complainant got burnt and the complainant intimated the same to the OP. The meter ought to has been burnt due to loose wiring during the shifting of the meter. Thereafter the Op issued a bill for Rs.2500/- on average basis and the same was paid. It is further averred that the complainant received a notice bearing number 966 dated 6.6.2013 to the complainant on the ground that audit party has revised the bill for the month of January, 2013 and Rs.3644/- is more payable, which were deposited by the complainant. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant received a bill number 2932 dated 28.5.2014 whereby an amount of Rs.20,978/- demanded on account of sundry expenses, but when approached the OP got deposited a sum of Rs.15302/- as part payment and assured that the bill will be corrected. Further case of the complainant is that thereafter he received bill dated 28.6.2014 for Rs.36,620/- in which an amount of Rs.28,523/- was added as arrears and the complainant was made to deposit Rs.15,650/- under the threat of disconnection against the actual consumption bill of Rs.8099/-. Thereafter the complainant received a bill dated 30.7.2014 for Rs.28030/- in which Rs.21,677/- have been added as arrears and the complainant made a payment of Rs.10,000/- against the same. Further the complainant received another bill for Rs.24,700/-, out of which Rs.5708/- were the actual consumption charges, which the OP refused to get deposited, so the complainant sent the same through registered letter dated 9.9.2014, but the receipt of the same was issued on 23.09.2014. Thereafter the complainant received bill dated 25.9.2014 for Rs.34,910/- in which Rs.25,234/- were shown as arrears despite the fact actual consumption charges were Rs.9676/- only. Thereafter the OP again coerced the complainant to deposit Rs.18,802/- vide receipt number 67 dated 7.10.2014 and receipt number 58 dated 7.10.2014 to avoid disconnection. By this way, the OP got deposited Rs.81,462/- against the actual consumption charges of Rs.36,506/-, thereby deposited an excess amount of Rs.44,956/- from the complainant. The OP failed to refund the same despite best efforts of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.44,956/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and further to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental tension and harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has got no jurisdiction, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is stated that the bill for the month of 1/2014 was raised on D code basis, as such the bill was sent for Rs.2500/- on MMC basis, whereas the bill should be issued as per Supply Code Annexure-8 and applying load factor i.e. 15.92 KW*8Hours*30 days*60% = 2292 units were chargable. As such, the demand of Rs.20,978/- was raised against the complainant in the bill for the month of 5/2014 as sundry charges. Thereafter the complainant did not deposit the bills regularly. The complainant deposited only a sum of Rs.15650/- on 8.7.2014 and Rs.10,000/- on 11.08.2014. A sum of Rs.24,700/- has been raised in the bill for the month of 8/2014 which includes arrears of Rs.18,584/- which are still recoverable from the complainant. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-21 copies of electricity bills and receipts, Ex.C-22 affidavit of Kulwinder Singh and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit of Balwinder Singh, Ex.OP-2 statement, Ex.OP-3 copy of Annexure B, Ex.OP-4 copy of audit report, Ex.OP-5 electricity regulation and closed evidence.
4. We have perused the pleadings, evidence of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the complainant is a consumer of the OP as he obtained the electricity connection to earn his livelihood by way of self employment.
6. A bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that the dispute is over the raising of the demand of Rs.20,978/- by the OP as sundry charges in the bill number 2932 dated 28.5.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant was never made known about this demand nor any prior notice has been served upon the complainant before raising such a huge demand nor the demand is legal one as the same has been raised against the complainant without assigning any reasons. The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that it is the duty of the OP to keep the electricity meter installed by the OP at the premises of the complainant in intact position. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended that the meter of the complainant became defective and as such the bill for the month of 1/2014 was raised on D-code basis, as such a bill for Rs.2500/- on MMC basis was issued, which was later on issued as per Supply Code Annexure-8 and applying load factor i.e. 15.92KW*8Hours *30days*60%=2292 units. As such, the demand of Rs.20978/- was raised against the complainant in the bill dated 28.5.2014, which is said to be quite legal and according to the rules and regulations.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently and has drawn our attention towards the Regulation number 93.1, which is reproduced below:-
“Payment of Arrears not originally billed: 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/unauthorised use of electricity or demand/load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/detected by the authorised 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/malpractice 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 unauthorised 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.”
8. In the present case, the OP has not issued any separate bill for raising such a huge demand of Rs.20,978/-, rather the same has been inserted as ‘sundry charges’ in the bill dated 28.5.2014, which, in our mind, is quite illegal and without any basis. As such, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Further, before raising such a demand, no opportunity of being heard to the complainant has been afforded by the OP.
9. In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to withdraw the demand of Rs.20,978/- raised in the bill number 2932 dated 28.5.2014 and further to overhaul the bills issued thereafter and refund to the complainant the remaining amount after calculation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13.08.2014 till realisation. The OP is also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of litigation expenses.
10. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
March 2, 2015.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
