Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/340

Sham Sunder - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

05 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    C. C. No :             340 of 2017

Date of Institution :       9.10.2017

Date of Decision :          5.03.2019

Sham Sunder aged about 51 years s/o Khushi Ram, r/o Old Factory Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib Road, Kotkapura,  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, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Kotkapura.                                 

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh  Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab

C. C. No -  340 of 2017

State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the illegal demand of  sundry charges of Rs.9,651/- raised vide

bill dt 14.09.2017 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.5,000/-.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic supply electric connection bearing a/c no PF 26/0318 (old), 3000792148 (new) running in his premises and complainant is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is submitted that his meter is installed outside his premises in the pillar box properly sealed and locked by OPs and complainant has no approach to that. It is further submitted that place where said meter is installed usually remains vacant and sometimes complainant gives the same on rent. It is contended that complainant received a bill dated 14.09.2017 for Rs.22,280/- in which amount of Rs.9,651/- is charged as sundry charges, which are very excessive 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 withdraw the excessive demand of sundry charges, but they did not pay any heed to hear his requests and they flatly refused to correct the bill. OP-2  rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the

C. C. No -  340 of 2017

entire amount in time, which 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 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 10.10.2017, 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 wherein asserted that meter of complainant was defective and it was D code. It was removed in May, 2016 but due to non reporting of D code by Meter Reader, bill was sent to complainant for very less amount, rather charges should have been made on the basis of consumption of same months of previous year. This fact was detected by Audit Party and thus, present amount is charged on account of difference of amount to be charged and amount deposited by complainant. Rs.9,651/-were found due towards complainant and this amount is charged as per rules and regulations and complainant is liable to pay the same. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect. It is further submitted

C. C. No -  340 of 2017

that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint 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 3 and closed the same.

6                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Harinder Singh, S D O as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-3 and then, closed the evidence.

7                             We have heard the ld counsel for complainant and Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on 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 complainant is having  electric connection issued by Ops and he is the consumer of OPs and has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill  dated 14.09.2017 for Rs.22,820/-in which Rs.9,651/-are charged as sundry charges, which is very excessive and complainant is not liable to pay the same. These

C. C. No -  340 of 2017

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 withdraw the excessive demand of sundry charges, but OP-2 flatly refused to correct the bill, rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, which 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 for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides main relief. He has prayed for accepting the complaint.

9                                              The grievance of complainant is that amount of Rs.9,651/- raised by Ops vide bill dated 14.09.2017 is highly excessive, illegal and is unlawful as nothing is due towards him. It is further submitted that no detail or prior notice for sundry charges have ever been given to him by OPs. On the other hand plea taken by OPs is that meter of complainant was defective with D code and was removed in May, 2016 but due to non reporting of D code by Meter Reader, bill was sent to complainant for very less amount instead on the basis of consumption of same months of previous year. Audit Party charged Rs.9,651/- on account of difference of amount to be charged and amount deposited by complainant. Rs.9,651/- are due and recoverable from complainant.

C. C. No -  340 of 2017

10                                     Ld Counsel for complainant further contended that OPs did not give any prior notice before adding sundry charges in bill dated 14.09.2017. Even OPs did not provide any detail for charging sundry charges. 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

C. C. No -  340 of 2017

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.

                                      He argued that as per regulation 93.01, OPs have to issue a separate bill giving full detail of the charges levied prior to adding it into the electricity bills but in this case, they did not issue any separate bill giving any detail and facts for which they demanded this amount. Further as per rule 93.2, OPs cannot demand any sum from any consumer after a period of 2 years from the date when such amount becomes due, but Ops failed to adduce any evidence whether amount demanded by them is due within two years or it is beyond two years and in such case, they cannot demand this amount from complainant being its time barred as per their own regulations.

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)-

C. C. No -  340 of 2017

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 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.

 

C. C. No -  340 of 2017

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 cannot 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                                                       Therefore, from the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Ops have not followed the proper procedure to recover the arrear as alleged by them as per their own regulations which amounts to deficiency in service. We are fully convinced with the arguments and case law produced by complainant and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs cannot recover the impugned charges from the complainant without giving any notice and detail thereof. OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.9,651/- which is demanded by them from complainant on account of sundry charges vide bill dt 14.09.2017. 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

 

C. C. No -  340 of 2017

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 : 5.03.2019                                                                                

(Param Pal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                           Member                           President