Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/57

Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

22 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

                                                C.C. No :                    57 of 2020

       Date of Institution :    02.03.2020                                                              

                                                          Date of Decision :       22.08.2024

Rani aged about 44 years wife of Anish Miyan, r/o Majhbi-Sikh Mohalla, Near PSPCL Office, Bathinda Road, Jaitu, 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 City,  Sub Division, PSPCL, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, under Section 35 of the C. P. Act 2019)

 

Quorum: Sh Rakesh Kumar Singla, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Mohan Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

* * * * * * * *

ORDER

(Rakesh Kumar Singla, 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 withdraw the bill dated 09.02.2020 for Rs.46,680/- in which illegal

cc no. 57of 2020

demand of  sundry charges of Rs.40,914/- is raised and for further directing them to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she is having domestic supply electric connection bearing a/c no 3005176626  running in her premises and she has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards her on account of consumption charges. It is contended that complainant received a bill dated 09.02.2020 for the period from 07.12.2019 to 09.02.2020 for 384 units for Rs.46,680/- in which Rs.40,914/-are charged as sundry charges. Demand raised by OPs for sundry charges and arrears through bill in question is quite illegal and unlawful 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 give detail and to withdraw the excessive demand of sundry charges and arrears. OP-2 did not provide her any detail of said charges, but verbally told her that amount in question relates to some other account number. Complainant made several requests to them withdraw the said demand, but they did not pay any heed to hear her requests and they flatly refused to correct the bill. OP-2  rather threatened to disconnect the electric connection, if she fails to pay the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service on the

cc no. 57of 2020

part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which she has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and arrears and prayed for compensation for harassment and mental 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 03.03.2020, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                            On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties appeared in the Commission through their counsel and filed written statement wherein admitted that bill in question for Rs.46,682/-was issued by them which included arrears of Rs.40,914/-. Ld counsel for OPs brought before the Commission that premises wherein connection in question is installed, at that place an electricity connection was running in the name of husband of complainant and said connection was disconnected due non payment of consumption charges. After death of husband of complainant, she again applied for connection at same premises and gave undertaking before the officials of OPs that she would clear the pending or outstanding dues against connection which was in the name of her husband. At that time, she also deposited Rs.8000/-against previous dues for connection of her husband. It is further averred

cc no. 57of 2020

 that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as they have every right to recover the dues pending against consumption charges. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

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 document Ex C-2 and closed the same.

6                                           To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajinder Singh Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Sub Division, Jaitu, Faridkot Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to 7 and closed the same on  behalf of OPs.

7                                                   We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents produced on record 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 she has domestic electric connection with sanctioned load of 0.813 KW. Grievance of the complainant is that she received huge inflated bill for Rs.46,680/-which contained arrears of Rs.40,914/- for the period from 07.12.2019 to 09.02.2020.

 

 

cc no. 57of 2020

9                                  On the other hand, plea taken by Ops is that amount in question is still due towards her against previous connection which was in the name of her husband and as per OPs, complainant has given undertaking that she would clear the outstanding amount against previous account which was in the name of her husband and was disconnected due to non payment of bills. As per Ops they have charged this amount as per rules and they have every right to recover this amount.

10                                       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 raised by them.

11                                Ld Counsel for complainant submitted that complainant has prayed that she is a poor widow lady and is unable to pay this huge amount as in this period of inflation, it is very difficult to make both ends meet and being very poor lady, she cannot afford to pay this impugned amount of Rs.46,680/- and she has prayed for waiving off this amount.

12                       The Ld Counsel for complainant produced copy of circular dated 03.08.2022 issued by the office of Chief Engineer/Commercial, PSPCL, The Mall, Patiala vide which outstanding dues of all consumers have been waived off till 31.12.2021. This

cc no. 57 of  2020

document clearly reveals the fact that all electricity bills of domestic supply consumers issued uptil 31.12.2021 and which have not been paid till 30.06.2022 stand waived off. It is noticed that bill challenged by complainant has been issued on 09.02.2020 and falls within the provisions of this circular dated 03.08.2022. As electricity meter connection in question is also domestic supply connection and therefore, keeping in view the guidelines issued under circular dated 03.08.2022, all amount in respect of bill dated 09.02.2020 is required to be waived off.

13                                            In view of above discussion and keeping in view the document placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that impugned bill dated 09.02.2020 comes under the purview of Commercial Circular dated 03.08.2022 vide which Government has waived off all dues pending till 31.12.2021 of  those consumers, whose domestic supply load is upto 2 KW. Moreover, Consumer Protection Act is for the welfare and benefit of complainant and in view of prayer made by complainant that being a poor widow, she has been unable to pay the amount of Rs.46,680/-charged by OPs vide bill dated 09.02.2020, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed. OPs are directed to withdraw the bill dated 09.02.2020 and accordingly, waive off the charges levelled against bill issued by them on 09.02.2020 that contained arrears and sundry charges. OPs are further directed to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited by complainant with OPs in compliance of the

 

cc no. 57 of  2020

order dt 03.03.2020 of this Commission.  In peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs.

14                                Compliance of this order be made within 45 days of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which OPs shall have to pay interest at the rate of 9% over amount of Rs.20,000/-deposited by complainant with them from the date of payment with them till final realization.

15                                      Complaint case could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases and incomplete quorum.                 

16                                Copy of the order be supplied to respective parties free of cost as per law.  File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Commission

Dated : 22.08.2024

(Param Pal Kaur)               (Rakesh Kumar Singla)

                             Member                                   President