Tarsem Kumar filed a consumer case on 06 Feb 2017 against PSPCL in the Faridkot Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/242 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Mar 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
Complaint No : 242
Date of Institution : 29.08.2016
Date of Decision : 6.02.2017
Tarsem Kumar aged about 38 years s/o Sat Pal r/o House No.107 Balaji Colony, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
...Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala,.
Assistant Executive Engineer, DS City Sub Division, PSPCL, Faridkot.
.........Ops
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,
Sh P Singla, Member.
Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,
Sh M S Brar, 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 dt 19.08.2016 for Rs.22,590/- and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.5000/-as litigation expenses.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having electric connection bearing a/c no RB-83/0440 (old), No.3000425284 (new) running in his premises and he has been regularly paying all the bills as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is submitted that complainant received bill dt 19.08.2016 for Rs.22,590/-for the period from 16.04.2016 to 19.08.2016 by showing the previous reading 8071 and current reading 11154 and this bill is excessive. It is submitted that previously, complainant received bill dt 15.06.2016 for Rs.8450/-for the period from 16.04.2016 to 15.06.2016 by showing the previous reading 8071 and current reading 9252 and he duly paid the said bill on 27.06.2016. it is further submitted that bill in question dt 19.08.2016 also includes the consumption for the period from 16.04.2016 to 15.06.2016, for which complainant has already made payment on 27.06.2016. Bill dated 19.08.2016 for Rs.22,590/- includes the bill already issued on 15.06.2016. On receiving this bill, complainant immediately reached the office of OPs and made request to them to correct this bill as it was excessive, but instead of correcting the same and listening his request, OPs threatened to disconnect his electric connection if he fails to pay the amount charged in bill in time. Complainant further submitted that earlier his sanctioned load was only1.270 KW, but he got extended the same, by depositing Rs.3000/-with Ops vide receipt dt 18.05.2006, but this extension of load was not shown in bill in question. Meter of complainant was checked on 15.07.2014 and calculated load was 6.153 KW and on the basis of checking report, OPs charged ACD and Service Connection Charges as sundry charges of Rs.5500/-in bill issued in month of 06/2015 by treating already sanctioned load as only 1.270 KW without giving the benefit of 3KW the load already got extended by him on 15.05.2006. bill for 06/2015 was paid with request to correct the bill, but Ops neither corrected the bill nor refunded the excessive amount to complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice 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.30,000/- as 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 5.09.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.
4 Opposite parties filed written statement wherein admitted that bill dt 19.08.2016 for Rs.22,590/-was issued by them for the period from 16.04.2016 to 19.08.2016 for 125 days and asserted that bill dt 16.06.2016 for Rs.8450 for the period from 16.04.2016 to 15.06.2016 was issued to complainant and complainant paid the same. It is also admitted that bill was again issued for 16.04.2016 to 19.08.2016 for Rs.22,590/- and thus, refund of Rs.8450/- was due for payment for bill 6/2016, but in the month of August/2016, when meter of complainant was checked, it was found that reading of the meter was 26192 whereas complainant had made payment for only 25118 units and in this way, bill for 1074 units of old meter and 413 for new meter reading was charged and total bill for 1487 units was prepared after giving rebate of previously made payment and balance outstanding amount up to 8/4 remain of Rs.8296/- and excess payment for 6/2016 was Rs.8450/-. Adjustment was made and refund of Rs.325 was also given to complainant. it is further averred that sanctioned load of complainant was 1.270KW, but during checking on 15.07.2014 load was found excessive. He paid Rs.3000/-vide receipt dt 18.05.2006 for extension of load, but inadvertently, load of complainant was not extended and on complaint by complainant, Rs.3000/-were refunded to him as per register dt 24.10.2016 and as load of complainant remained 1.270 KW, but during checking it was found to be 6.153KW and thus load of 4.883 was excessive and thus, Rs.2500/- at the rate of 500/-per KW and service connection charges Rs.3000/-at the rate of 600/-per KW thereby total of Rs.5500/-were charged correctly and complainant is liable to pay the same. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally as the amount is charged as per power consumed by complainant. 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 5 and closed the same.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh AEE as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-11 and closed the evidence.
7 The ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that he is having electric connection bearing a/c no RB-83/0440 (old), No.3000425284 (new)running in his premises and he has been regularly paying all the and nothing is due towards him. It is submitted that complainant received bill dt 19.08.2016 for Rs.22,590/-for the period from 16.04.2016 to 19.08.2016 by showing the previous reading 8071 and current reading 11154 and this bill is excessive. Previously, complainant received bill dt 15.06.2016 for Rs.8450/-for the period from 16.04.2016 to 15.06.2016 by showing the previous reading 8071 and current reading 9252 and he duly paid the said bill on 27.06.2016. It is submitted that bill in question dt 19.08.2016 also includes the consumption for the period from 16.04.2016 to 15.06.2016, for which complainant has already made payment on 27.06.2016. Bill dated 19.08.2016 for Rs.22,590/- includes the bill already issued on 15.06.2016. On receiving this bill, complainant immediately reached OPs and requested to correct this bill as it was excessive, but instead of correcting the same and listening his request, OPs threatened to disconnect his electric connection if he fails to pay the entire amount in time. Complainant further submitted that earlier his sanctioned load was only1.270 KW, but he got extended the same, by depositing Rs.3000/-with Ops vide receipt dt 18.05.2006, but this extension of load was not shown in bill in question. Meter of complainant was checked on 15.07.2014 and calculated load was 6.153 KW and on the basis of checking report, OPs charged ACD and Service Connection Charges as sundry charges of Rs.5500/-in bill issued in month of 06/2015 by treating already sanctioned load as only 1.270 KW without giving the benefit of 3KW the load already got extended by him on 15.05.2006. Bill for 06/2015 was paid with request to correct the bill, but Ops neither corrected the bill nor refunded the excessive amount, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to complainant for which he has prayed for compensation besides main relief.
8 To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs, but admitted that bill dt 19.08.2016 for Rs.22,590/-was issued by them for the period from 16.04.2016 to 19.08.2016 for 125 days and asserted that bill dt 16.06.2016 for Rs.8450 for the period from 16.04.2016 to 15.06.2016 was issued by them to complainant and complainant paid the same. It is also admitted that bill was again issued for 16.04.2016 to 19.08.2016 for Rs.22,590/- and thus, refund of Rs.8450/- was due for payment for bill 6/2016, but in the month of August/2016, when meter of complainant was checked, it was found that reading of the meter was 26192 whereas complainant had made payment for only 25118 units and in this way, bill for 1074 units of old meter and 413 for new meter reading was charged and total bill for 1487 units was prepared after giving rebate of previously made payment and balance outstanding amount up to 8/4 remain of Rs.8296/- and excess payment for 6/2016 was Rs.8450/-. Adjustment was made and refund of Rs.325 was also given to complainant. It is further averred that sanctioned load of complainant was 1.270KW, but during checking on 15.07.2014, load was found excessive. He paid Rs.3000/-vide receipt dt 18.05.2006 for extension of load, but inadvertently, load of complainant was not extended and on complaint by complainant, Rs.3000/-were refunded to him as per register dt 24.10.2016 and as load of complainant remained 1.270 KW, but during checking it was found to be 6.153KW and thus load of 4.883 was excessive and thus, Rs.2500/- at the rate of 500/-per KW and service connection charges Rs.3000/-at the rate of 600/-per KW thereby total of Rs.5500/-were charged correctly and complainant is liable to pay the same. It is further averred that amount has been charged legally and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.
9 The case of the complainant is that he has an electric connection at his residence issued by Ops and he is regularly paying all the electricity bills to OPs. He received a bill dated 19.08.2016 for Rs.22,590/- for period from 16.04.2016 to 19.08.2016 by showing the previous reading 8071 and current reading 11154. Previously, he received a bill dated 15.06.2016 for Rs.8450/- for period from 16.04.2016 to 15.06.2016 by showing the previous reading 8071 units and current reading 9252 units. This bill was duly paid by complainant on 27.06.2016, but in the bill dated 19.08.2016, this amount is also included. He approached OPs but they refused to correct the bill. Further submitted that his earlier load was 1.270 KW and for extension of same he deposited Rs.3000/-with OPs on 18.05.2006, but OPs did not extend the load. His meter was checked by OPs on 15.07.2014 and connected load was found as 6.153 KW and on the basis of checking report, he deposited Rs.5500/-for extending his load but OPs did not adjust the amount of Rs.3000/-already deposited by complainant on 18.05.2006 for extension of load. On the other hand, OPs admitted that they issued bill dated 19.08.2016 for Rs.22,590/-for the period from 16.04.2016 to 19.08.2016. They further admitted that earlier on 15.06.2016 they issued bill for Rs.8450/- for the period from 16.04.2016 to 15.06.2016, which was paid by complainant and in the bill dated 19.08.2016, the amount of this bill is also included and amount of Rs.8450/-was to be refunded to complainant but in the mean time in August/2014, meter of complainant was checked and it was found that final reading of meter was 26192 units whereas complainant has made payment for the load 25118 units. So, the Audit Party overhauled his bill and balance of Rs.8296/- was outstanding in the account of complainant. The amount of Rs.8450/- was paid by complainant in the month of June/2016 and adjusted towards this amount and remaining amount of Rs.325/-was refunded to him. It is further admitted that complainant deposited Rs.3000/-in May/2006 for extension of his sanctioned load but inadvertently, the load was not extended and on complaint by complainant, the amount of Rs.3000/-is already refunded to him on 24.10.2016. They further admitted that on checking the connected load of complainant was found as 6.153 KW instead of sanctioned load of 1.270/-KW. As such, Rs.5500/-were charged correctly from him for extending his load. The necessary adjustments are made in the account of complainant. The amount of Rs.8450/-received from complainant vide bill dated June/2016 is correctly adjusted in his account for the previous period of 08/2014. The OPs have every right to recover this amount from complainant. Ld counsel for complainant argued that OPs have wrongly and illegally charged this amount from complainant. There was no amount due towards complainant. OPs sent bills correctly for actual consumption and not for less consumption and complainant paid all the bills. Moreover, as per their own regulations, OPs can not charges the dues relating to previous period or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment etc or pointed out by Internal Audit or Authorized 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.
10 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.
11 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.
12 We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.
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 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. The OPs cannot adjust the amount of Rs.8450/-received in excess from complainant vide bill dated 15.06.2016 as arrears of previous period on the basis of checking report allegedly made on 08/2014 without giving any prior notice. Hence, the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. The Ops are directed to correct the bill dated 19.08.2016 for Rs.22,590/- for the period from 16.04.2016 to 19.08.2016 by adjusting the amount already received by them vide bill dated 15.06.2016 for Rs.8450/- for the period from 16.04.2016 to 15.06.2016 and are further directed to correct the sanctioned load of complainant in their record as 6.153 KW instead of 1.270 KW. Ops are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.14,000/-deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 12.10.2016 passed by this Forum. 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 : 6.02.2017
Member President (P Singla) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.