Complaint No: 334 of 2019.

     Date of Institution: 19.11.2019.

             Date of order: 18.10.2023.

Sawinder Singh Son of Bishan Singh, resident of House No. 514/11, Prem Nagar, Hardo Channi Road, District Gurdaspur, Punjab. Pin Code – 143521.

                                                                                                                                                 .....Complainant.

                                                  VERSUS

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman / Chief Managing Director. Pin Code – 147001.

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub - Division Sub Urban Gurdaspur, through its S.D.O. Pin Code – 143521.

                                                                                                                                                                      .....Opposite parties.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                    Complaint U/S 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the complainant: Sh.Kawalpreet Singh, Advocate.

               For the opposite parties: Sh.Opinder Rana, Advocate.

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, Presiden, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

          Sawinder Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against P.S.P.C.Ltd. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the father of the complainant has installed an electric connection bearing A/c No.3000184452 for Atta Chakki, during his lifetime as he was unemployed and he used the same for Atta Chakki and he was earning his livelihood from this Atta Chakki and the father of the complainant has been died and the complaint using the same for his livelihood and pay the electricity bill to the opposite parties regularly thus he is consumer of the opposite parties. It was submitted that the complainant has been paying the electricity bill as per consumptions regularly and he has paid last bill amounting of Rs.37,280/-  on 25.10.2019 and as per the last bill there is no any arrear outstanding against the complainant. It was alleged that the complainant requested the opposite parties to withdraw the arrear amount of Rs.40,478/-  vide memo No.1485 dated 23.10.19 but the opposite parties have become deaf ear to the complainant’s request hence the act of the opposite parties is resulting in harassment and mental agony towards the complainant. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal notice amounting of Rs.40,478/- dated 23.10.2019 vide memo No.1485. The opposite parties may also be burdened with compensatory costs of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and deficiency in services and Rs.10,000/- as Litigation expenses to the complaint, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complainant; that the complainant has not come to the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not consumer to the opposite parties. It was pleaded that memo in question bearing No.1485 dated 23.10.2019 of Rs.40,478/- is legal and genuine one as the power factor of the SP connection should not be less than 0.9 KW, but the power factor of the complainant is used to come less than 0.9 KW from the last one year hence audit party directed the opposite parties to recover the amount of Rs.40,478/- by passing the half margin dated 26.4.2018. It was further pleaded that thereafter the opposite parties send the notice No.768 to the complainant for the recovery of disputed amount. So the amount so demanded by the opposite parties is legal and genuine and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has filed documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Hirdaypal Singh, (S.D.O, P.S.P.C.Ltd, Sub – Division City Gurdaspur) as Ex.OP-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-14.

6.       Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments filed by the opposite parties but not filed by the complainant.

8.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

9.       In the present complaint the complainant challenged memo No.1485 dated 23.10.19 as Ex.C2 issued by the opposite party No.2 to deposit Rs.40,478/- against electric connection bearing A/c No. 3000184452 alleging that it is illegal. It was submitted by the complainant in the complaint that he is running a Atta Chakki for which this electric connection is installed in the name of his father who is deceased. At present he is running this Atta Chakki for earning his livelihood. It is also pointed out by the complainant that he has paid all the electricity bills issued till date and alleged that the said notice issued by opposite party No.2 is illegal and prayed for its withdrawal.

10.     Opposite parties in their written statement denied all the allegations and stated that the said notice was issued to the complainant on the basis of the half margin dated 26.04.2018 as Ex.OP-13 to recover surcharge for power factor less than 0.9 for the period 02/17 to 01/18. Opposite parties placed on record copies of the bills from 02/17 to 01/18 at Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-11 in which the power factor is shown as varying from 0.76 to 0.85. 

11.     It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that these instructions were not applicable during the year 2017 and had it been charged there and then the complainant must have rectified the power factor to the required value but the opposite parties neither educated him nor charged the amount of surcharge in the same month. By this way the complainant was deprived of the opportunity to avoid such surcharge.

12.     Opposite parties during the course of arguments pointed out that the complainant is not the consumer as this electric connection is not in his name and the amount charged is as per rules and regulations of the department.

13.     Although, this electric connection is being used for Atta Chakki under small power industry but it is being used by the complainant as beneficiary to earn his livelihood.

14.     We have placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1042 of 2020 in case titled as Canara Bank. Vs. M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. wherein in para No.25 it is held as under:-

          "25. The definition of consumer under the Act is very wide and it not only includes the person who hires or avails of the       services for consideration but also includes the beneficiary of  such services who may be a person other than the person who hires or avails of services".

Hence it is the valid case for adjudication in this Commission as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

15.     After going the details of the case it is seen that the notice in question was issued by the opposite parties in 10/19 whereas the amount pertains to 02/17 to /01/18, so from 02/17 to 09/17 is the period which become more than two years. As per Electricity Supply Code Regulation 32.2, it is not chargeable being beyond two years. Further, during the arguments it was also stated by the opposite parties that this amount was charged as per prevailing instructions at that time under ESIM, 2017. But it is clear from Electricity Supply Instruction Manual 2017, these instructions are applicable from 06/17. Hence, it does not become applicable from 02/17 to 05/17. Opposite parties have not placed on record any evidence showing the applicability of ESIM 2017 retrospectively.  

16.     We do agree to the point raised by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that had this amount been charged in the month of 02/17 then the complainant would have improved the power factor of the connection to avoid such surcharge for the low power factor but the opposite parties failed to do this. Hence, it is the clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as the opposite parties have violated their own rules and regulations.  

17.     In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that notice issued by the opposite party No.2 vide memo No.1485 dated 23.10.19 is null & void because some of the period for which the amount is charged in this notice pertains to beyond two years. Further, the rules applied for charging the disputed amount was also not applicable at that time. The complainant has also been deprived of the opportunity to improve the power factor to avoid such surcharges by not charging the due amount in the same month.

18.     Hence, the present complaint is partly allowed and the notice issued vide memo No.1485 dated 23/10/19 (Ex.C2) is hereby set aside being not recoverable. No order as to costs.  

19.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.

20.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                          

      (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                  President  

Announced:                                               (B.S.Matharu)

Oct. 18, 2023                                                     Member

YP.