Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/265

Viran Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

                                                 C.C. No :                  265 of 2019

        Date of Institution :   23.10.2019

        Date of Decision :     28.03.2023

Viran Devi aged about 75 years w/o Babu Ram Bansal, r/o Street No.2/3 (L), Hira Singh Nagar, Main Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil 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 Sub Urban, Sub Division, PSPCL, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura,  District Faridkot.

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(now, u/s  35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum: Smt Priti Malhotra, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

                Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Mohan Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OPs.

cc no.-265 of 2019

ORDER

(Priti Malhotra, 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 refund the amount of sundry charges of Rs.35,754/- raised vide bill dt 24.07.2019 that complainant deposited with them 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.10,000/-.

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having domestic supply electric connection bearing a/c no 3000934950 running in his premises in the name of one Rajinder Kumar, who sold the house to Sudagar Chand and from said Sudagar Chand, complainant purchased the house in question and since then, said connection in question is being used by him and he has been paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him on account of consumption charges. It is contended that complainant received a bill dated 24.07.2019 for Rs.44,580/- in which Rs.35,754/-are charged as sundry charges though no notice regarding

cc no.-265 of 2019

said charges was ever given to him. Demand raised by OPs for sundry charges in question is quite illegal and unlawful 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 enquired about said charges and then, they told complainant that this amount is charged by Audit Party but did not give any detail. He requested them to withdraw the excessive demand of sundry charges and they assured to correct the same but did not do anything needful. On assurance of Ops,  complainant deposited Rs.23,000/- with Ops on 06.08.2019, but after some days, employees of Ops visited the house of complainant and threatened him to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the remaining amount of Rs.21,560/- on 12.09.2019 and under compelling circumstances, complainant paid the remaining amount to Ops. It is alleged that this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for rendering deficient services. He has prayed for refund of Rs.35,754/- and has also prayed for

 

cc no.-265 of 2019

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 30.10.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                         On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties appeared in the Commission through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complainant is not the consumer of OPs as connection in question is in the name of Rajinder Kumar, who sold the house to Sudagar Chand and Sudagar Chand sold the said house to complainant and connection is still in the name of Rajinder Kumar, who never gave any information to answering OPs regarding the fact that he  is not the owner of said house and even no information regarding change of name was ever given by previous owner or subsequent owner of that house. Neither any A & A form alongwith letter of consent of previous owner for transfer of connection, proof of ownership of premises and in case of consent of

cc no.-265 of 2019

previous owner, application for transfer of security at prevalent rates was ever submitted by complainant. There is bilateral contract between original consumer and PSPCL, but complainant did not get the  connection transferred in his name in the record of answering OPs. He cannot be treated as beneficiary of services provided by OPs and he is not for any relief sought by him. however, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that bill dated 24.07.2019 for Rs.8,709/- was correctly issued in the name of Rajinder Kumar on the basis of reading recorded by meter showing old reading of 613 units and new reading 1688  for consumption of 1075 units and in this bill Rs.35,754/- have been charged as sundry charges. It is further averred that old meter of complainant was changed at 8483 units reading, but bill was issued for 4179 units and remaining charges for 4304 units were charged sundry charges and notice no.1292 dated 11.07.2018  in this regard was also sent to complainant and this amount is charged on the basis of actual reading as per rules and regulations of PSPCL. Complainant admitted his liability and willingly deposited the remaining amount and amount is charged correctly. There is no

cc no.-265 of 2019

deficiency in service on the part of OPs. All the other allegations levelled by complainant are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

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                            To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Chunish Jain AEE, PSPCL as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-13 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the affidavits, evidence and 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 case of the complainant is

cc no.-265 of 2019

that he received a bill dated 24.07.2019 for Rs.44,580/- in which Rs.35,754/-are charged as sundry charges, which is very excessive and complainant is not liable to pay the same. Complainant brought before the Commission that meter in question is in the name of Rajinder Kumar, who sold the house to Sudagar Chand and from said Sudagar Chand, complainant purchased the house in question and since then, said connection is being used by him. He has paid  all bills and nothing is due towards him on account of consumption charges. Ops never issued any notice of letter regarding sundry charges to him. Under compelling circumstances, complainant had to deposit the entire amount to OPs raised vide bill dated 24.07.2019 for Rs.44,580/- in which Rs.35,754/-are charged as sundry charges. He has prayed for directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.35,754/-which they received on account of sundry charges from him.

9                                              The grievance of complainant is that amount of Rs.35,754/- raised by Ops vide bill dated 24.07.2019 is highly excessive, illegal and is unlawful as nothing is due towards him.

 

cc no.-265 of 2019

 10                                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.

11                                From the careful perusal of complaint, reply and documents placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that OPs have charged as per Ex OP-7, Op-8 and store challan dated 28.03.2018, but as per documents Ex OP-10 and OP-13, the meter was removed at the reading of 4224, but OPs have charged huge amount on the basis of Audit Party report that shows old meter reading as 8483 which is inappropriate.

14                                Therefore, from the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Ops have not followed the proper procedure and method to charge the arrear as alleged by them as per their own documents, 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 are

cc no.-265 of 2019

directed to recalculate the consumption charges as per rules upto reading of 4224 and follow the proper procedure for making recovery of sundry charges and to refund or adjust the amount of Rs.35,754/-which they received from complainant illegally vide bill dated 24.07.2019. 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 : 28.03.2023

 

                                          

         Member                       Member                              President

        (Vishav Kant Garg)     (Param Pal Kaur)     (Priti Malhotra)