Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/162

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Singh Mittal

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :        162

                                                   Date of Institution :  20.11.2015   

   Date of Decision :    10.06.2016

 

Sandeep Kumar s/o Hem Raj, r/o Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Main Bazar, 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, Sub Division PSPCL, Jaitu.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

                Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Amit Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

 (Ajit Aggarwal, 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  for Rs.26,071/- and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.                               

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having electric connection bearing a/c no. 3000245900 (New) F45BB260601 (old), running in his premises under DS category and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. Said connection was being used by complainant for domestic purpose and connected load for same is 4.850 KW and average bill comes between 500 to 1000 units. In may, 2014. Meter of complainant became defective, which was duly reported to Ops and they sent bill on average basis and status of meter was shown as ‘D’code. After this meter of complainant was replaced on 5.02.2015 and new one was installed and bills raised thereafter were duly paid by complainant, but suddenly, complainant received a bill for Rs26,071/-wherein Rs23,072/-were added as SOP and Rs.2999/-as ED under head sundry charges, he immediately approached Ops, where he came to know that this amount is levied by Audit Party on pretext that at the time of replacing the meter, the reading was 14005 units and as per Audit Party there was consumption of 3517 units. This demand of OPs is against the rules of Ops. Meter of complainant was defective and how can a defective meter record the correct reading. Moreover, his meter has not been checked from any Laboratory and at the time of removal of meter from his house, complainant was not present there. Complainant visited Ops many times and requested them to withdraw the demand of sundry charges, but OP-2 refused to do so.  All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                                   Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 27.11.2015, 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 taking preliminary objections OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that meter of complainant became defective and it was changed and last bill was sent for reading 10448. When meter was removed, reading on it was 14005 units and this last reading was given by M E Lab, where the same was checked, thus, bill for 3517 units i.e difference between 14005-10448 = 3517 was sent to complainant as it was never charged before and was never paid by complainant. All this was detected by Audit Party and present amount is charged on account of difference in units already charged and that which were required to be charged. It is further averred that bill was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the said amount but he did not deposit the same. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

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 documents Ex C-2 to 15 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Arshpreet Singh SDO as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-5 and closed the evidence.

7                               The ld Counsel for complainant vehementally  argued that complainant is having electric connection bearing a/c no. 3000245900 (New) F45BB260601 (old), running in his premises under DS category and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. Said connection was being used by complainant for domestic purpose and connected load for same is 4.850 KW and average bill comes between 500 to 1000 units. In may, 2014, meter of complainant became defective, which was duly reported to Ops and they sent bill on average basis and status of meter was shown as ‘D’code. After this meter of complainant was replaced on 5.02.2015 and new one was installed and bills raised thereafter were duly paid by complainant, but, complainant received a bill for Rs26,071/-wherein Rs23,072/-were added as SOP and Rs.2999/-as ED under head sundry charges, he immediately approached Ops, where he came to know that this amount is levied by Audit Party on pretext that at the time of replacing the meter, the reading was 14005 units and as per Audit Party there was consumption of 3517 units. This demand of OPs is against the rules of Ops. Meter of complainant was defective and how can a defective meter record the correct reading. Moreover, his meter has not been checked from any Laboratory and at the time of its removal from his house, complainant was not present there. Complainant made many requests to OPs to withdraw the demand of sundry charges, but all in vain. The OPs have no right to demand this amount from complainant as sundry charges. All these acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and due to these acts of OPs, complainant has faced great mental tension, agony and harassment. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

8                              To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this case. The Ops have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees and complainant should approach such committees to settle his dispute, so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, they admitted that bill in question is issued by OPs. It is asserted that meter of complainant became defective, which was changed and last bill was sent for reading of 10448 units. When meter was removed, reading on it was 14005 units and this last reading was given by M E Lab, where the same was checked and therefore, bill for 3517 units i.e difference between 14005-10448 = 3517 was sent to complainant as it was never charged before and was never paid by complainant. It was detected by Audit Party and present amount is charged on account of difference in units already charged and that which were required to be charged. This demand of OPs is legal and as per rules of Ops and they charged this amount correctly. Therefore, the question of withdrawing the said bill does not arise at all and OPs have every right to recover this amount from complainant. The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complainant against the OPs. The complaint may be dismissed with costs.

9                                   We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

10                                      The case of the complainant is that he has a domestic electric connection issued by OPs. His meter became defective and on his application, OPs checked and changed his meter with new one. He is regularly paying all the electricity bills and nothing is due towards him. In Oct, 2015, he received a bill issued by OPs demanding Rs.26,071/-as sundry charges from him, which is altogether illegal. It is illegal as nothing is due towards him on account of electricity charges. The demand of OPs is illegal and may be set aside. In reply, OPs admitted that complainant is their consumer and on his application his meter was changed as his old meter was defective. They argued that his old meter was sent for checking to M E Lab, where during checking, it was found that as per office record, last consumption of his old meter was recorded as 10488 units whereas in inspection, it is observed as 14005 units. So, as per report of M E Lab, they assessed the difference in consumption and demanded that amount from complainant. They assessed this amount correctly and as per rules of OPs/Punjab State Power Corporation ltd and are entitled to recover this amount from him. The Ops submitted that as the old meter of complainant was defective, so, old meter was removed and new meter was installed in its place. They alleged that  said meter was checked in M E Lab, where it is found that as per office record, the last reading of defective meter was recorded as 10488 units as per account summary of complainant and in checking report by M E Lab, the reading of meter is found as 14005 units and thus, they have rightly charged this amount from complainant on account of excessive consumption and load. It is admitted that at the time of change of meter, the meter was never sealed or checked in the presence of complainant or his representatives. Further, this meter was never checked or opened in the presence of complainant or his representatives in M E Lab. Even no notice or intimation of any kind regarding the checking of his meter in M E Lab was given to complainant. No opportunity to get checked the meter in the presence of complainant or his representative or to be heard before issuance of this bill was given to complainant. As per record of OPs, the reading of the old meter in February 2015 before the change of meter is recorded as 10488 units. They changed the old meter in Feb 2015, which is clear from copy of the bill dated 28.02.2015 produced by Ops themselves. As per their own record, they never sealed or checked the meter of complainant in his presence and they did not give any opportunity to complainant to submit his version. We can not rely upon the report of M E Lab, which is prepared by Ops themselves in the absence of complainant arbitrarily being a monopoly concern. Moreover, as per their  own regulations, OPs can not charge the dues relating to previous period or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment etc or pointed out by Internal Audit or Authorised Officer without issuing a separate bill giving complete detail of the charges levied.  Copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied should also be supplied to consumer but in the present case, no separate bill or notice giving complete detail of the amount charged or period of the amount ever issued to the complainant. So, as per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not demand this amount and can not add this as sundry charges  in current bill. The Ld Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity supply Instruction Manual of OPs where regulation no. 93 is regarding payment of arrears not originally billed. Relevant regulations is reproduced hereunder:

Payment of Arrears not Originally Billed :

93.1 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/unauthorized use of electricity or demand / load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the authorized 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/malpractices 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 connection of the meter and unauthorized 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.

93.2 Limitation:

Under Section 56(2) of the Act, no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two year from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied.

11                                   The complainant further put reliance on citation 2016 (2) Consumer Law Today 429 titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Others Vs Dinesh Sharma, wherein it is held that Electricity-Sundry charges can not be charged without show cause notice to complainant. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-electricity-Sundry charges added in electricity bill of complainant-Held-NO show cause notice issued to the complainant before imposing penalty-OPs have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant-In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency in service-Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case. Para 7-The appellants have failed to show any notice issued to the complainant before imposing the penalty. Our Hon’ble High Court has also opined in Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is required before imposing the penalty and an order about person who was likely to be affected thereby. In the present case, the appellants OPs have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant. In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the electricity Act and it is deficiency in service. Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case.

 12                                   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 charged by them as sundry charges.

13                                  As per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not charge any amount of previous dues or arrears without giving any supplementary bill or notice giving complete detail of charges and also giving copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied. They can not demand the arrear in the current bill as sundry charges and in the present case, the OPs have failed to produce any  evidence or document which proves that they issued any supplementary bill  or notice giving complete and full detail of the amount charged by them as arrears of consumption as alleged by them.

14                                   In these circumstances, we are of considered opinion that OPs are not entitled to recover this amount from complainant. All these acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Hence, the complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are ordered to withdraw the demand of Rs.26,071/-demanded by them vide their bill dt 27.10.2015. They are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.8000/-deposited by complainant with them vide order dt 27.11.2015 passed by this Forum in future bills. 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 25 and 27 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 : 10.06.2016

                                Member           Member           President                                                    (P Singla)                (P Dhillon)     (Ajit Aggarwal)