Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/93

Sukhchain Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

RAnjit Singh

23 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

                                                C. C. No :                          93 of 2020

       Date of Institution :      26.06.2020

                                                           Date of Decision :        23.06.2022

Sukhchain Singh aged about 56 years son of Ajit Singh, resident of Kamiana Gate, Near Service Station, 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., Faridkot, Tehsil and District  Faridkot.                                 

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

cc no.-93 of 2020

Present:      Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Raj Kumar Gupta, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

                                         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 illegal demand of Rs.51,810/- raised vide notice dt 04.06.2020 and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/- 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 he is having NRS electric connection bearing a/c no 3000383768 running in his small chicken shop that is being used by him for the purpose of his livelihood. He has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. Meter of complainant is installed outside his premises in Meter Cup Board, it is sealed by OPs and its reading is being taken by OPs regularly. It is submitted that complainant received notice dated 04.06.2020 in which demand of Rs.51,810/-was raised on the basis of alleged checking in M E Lab on 03.06.2020, which is quite unlawful and illegal. Meter of complainant

cc no.-93 of 2020

was installed in MCB and it was changed in his absence. No notice of checking in M E Lab was given to complainant. It is alleged that meter in question was changed in his absence and even its checking in M E Lab was not done in his presence and even as per rules and regulations of OPs, no notice or intimation in respect of said checking in M E Lab was conveyed to him. Even copy of alleged checking report was not given to him and moreover, reading of 6585 units shown in  said demand notice on the basis of said checking report is also false. On receiving the notice dated 04.06.2020, complainant immediately approached OP-2 and requested them to supply the copy of checking report and to withdraw the said demand notice, but OP-2 refused to pay any heed to his requests and threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to deposit the entire amount in time. Complainant made several requests to OPs to redress his grievance, but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony and tension to him for which he has prayed seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.51,810/- for 6585 units raised by them vide notice dated 04.06.2020 and has also prayed for

 

cc no.-93 of 2020

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 01.07.2020, 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 took preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. It is averred that connection of complainant was of NRS category, it became defective in 09/2019 and showed code D meaning thereby, it was defective. vide job order dated 21.11.2019, defective meter was replaced with new one and old one was sent to M E Lab, Moga where after checking of same on 03.06.2020, it was found that it was defective. Actual reading of the meter was 6585 units, whereas as per record, billing of meter was done upto 1607 units. After that account of complainant was updated and bill dated 04.06.2020 for Rs.51,810/- was issued by adding charges of 4978 units (actual reading 6585-charged upto 1607 units). This bill is rightly issued and there is no irregularity in it. It is further averred

cc no.-93 of 2020

that complainant neither approached any competent authority of answering OPs nor filed any written complaint or representation before the committee constituted to decide any dispute at the division, circle or zone level. He has unnecessarily dragged them in present litigation. On merits, all the allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect but it is admitted that meter of complainant was defective and after checking they issued bill on the basis of actual reading of 6585 units and reiterated the same averments as taken by them in preliminary objections. It is further reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                     Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-3 and closed the same.

6                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar Assistant

 

cc no.-93 of 2020

Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Faridkot Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-6 and then also, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7                                                    We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the affidavits, evidence and other documents placed on record by respective parties.

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 grievance of complainant is that amount of Rs.51,810/-, charged by Ops vide notice dated 04.06.2020 as arrears, is highly excessive and is unlawful as nothing is due against bills. It is further submitted that no detail or prior notice regarding checking of his meter was ever given to him by OPs. As per complainant, his meter was defective, it was removed in his absence and no notice regarding checking of same in M E Lab was ever conveyed to him and demand of huge amount of Rs.51,810/-raised by OPs vide impugned notice is highly excessive and illegal. On the contrary, it is admitted by OPs in their version that meter of complainant was defective. OPs have also not denied that his meter was checked in ME Lab and no notice in

cc no.-93 of 2020

respect of alleged checking was ever sent by them to complainant which is mandatory as per their own rules and regulations that meter is required to be checked in the presence of complainant or any of his representative. Moreover, no checking report was ever supplied to complainant. Act of OPs in not adopting proper procedure for doing checking of defective meter is not considered appropriate and it amounts to deficiency in service.

9                                      Ld Counsel for complainant further contended that OPs did not give any prior notice before doing checking of his meter in M E Lab on 03.06.2020. Even OPs did not provide any detail for charging said arrears. Ld Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity supply Instruction Manual of OPs wherein as per regulations  of PSPCL regarding 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/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

cc no.-93 of 2020

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.

10                                            Counsel for complainant argued that as per their own regulations, it is mandatory that prior notice or intimation be given to complainant before making checking of defective meter in M E Lab. Alleged checking of defective meter was required to be done in the presence of complainant and checking report is required to have signature of complainant or any of his representative, but in this case, they did not issue any letter or intimation note to complainant for doing checking of said meter in M E Lab on 03.06.2020 and also did not give any detail and facts for which they demanded this amount.

cc no.-93 of 2020

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 OPs have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of checking 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                 Ld Counsel for complainant argued that as per own regulations and instructions of PSPCL, without giving any notice or letter for alleged checking in M E Lab, which was not done in his presence, the OPs can not claim this amount from complainant and in the present case, the OPs did not issue any prior notice before making checking in M E Lab, which was done in his absence. It is wrong on the part of OPs in not sending any intimation or letter to complainant for checking of meter in M E Lab. Meaning thereby, checking in ME Lab was not done in the presence of complainant. As per instructions of PSPCL, it is mandatory for OPs to send notice to complainant while doing checking of meter in M E Lab and it was required to be done in his presence. But in present case, no such notice or letter was sent to complainant asking him to come present in ME Lab during checking of the meter.

13                     As per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not charge any amount of previous dues or arrears without giving any intimation or notice before doing checking of meter or without giving complete                detail of charges levied and also giving copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied. They cannot demand the arrear for any checking that was not done in the presence of complainant or any of his representative and in the present case, the OPs have failed to produce any evidence or document which proves that they issued any notice in respect of conducting checking of meter on 03.06.2020, on the basis of which they have raised demand notice dated 04.06.2020 and  have failed to provide 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 arrears 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 for the meter that they themselves admit to be defective and which was checked in the absence of complainant and even without issuing any notice to complainant regarding its checking. OPs are directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.51,810/-which is demanded by them from complainant on account of arrears vide bill dt 04.06.2020 and for the period in dispute, OPs can charge the consumption

cc no.-93 of 2020

charges as per charges for power consumed corresponding to previous year consumption as per regulations of PSPCL in case of defective meter. If any amount of Rs.20,000/-is deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 04.08.2020 of this Forum, then that amount be also adjusted in the successive 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 71 and 72 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 Commission

Dated : 23.06.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cc no.-93 of 2020

Sukhchain Singh    Vs    PSPCL

 

 

Present:      Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Raj Kumar Gupta, Ld Counsel for OPs.

                    Arguments heard. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Commission

Dated : 23.06.2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member