Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/42/2014

Gram Panchayat vill nabhipur - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCorp LTD - Opp.Party(s)

Sh PC Joshi

18 Mar 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

 

C.C. No. 42 of 01.04.2014

Decided on: 18.03.2015

Gram Panchayat of village Nabipur, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Sarpanch Smt.Parkash Kaur.

……..Complainant Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.

2. Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Urban Division, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

3. X.E.N., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.,Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 to 14

of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

 

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member.

 

Present : Sh.P.C.Joshi,counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Sumit Gupta, counsel for the Ops.

ORDER

By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

Smt.Parkash Kaur, being the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of Village Nabipur, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib has filed this complaint against the opposite parties ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2. The electricity connection bearing account No.SL-52-0003P is running in the name of Gram Panchayat, Nabipur, which is being used for the supply of electricity to the street lights. Gram Panchayat is regularly paying the charges of the electricity. Last bill for an amount of Rs.8082/- issued by the OPs was paid by the Gram Panchayat on 10.1.2014.A bill for the period 15.1.2014 to 15.02.2014 for an amount of Rs.1,07,830/- was received by the Gram Panchayat, in which an amount of Rs.1,03,815/- was wrongly added as arrear of the bill. The complainant was never a defaulter in paying the bills of the electricity. The bill dated 24.2.2014 sent by the OPs is illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. The complainant so many times requested the OPs to rectify the bill but they flatly refused to do so. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint, for a direction to the OPs to deduct the amount of Rs.1,03,815/- from the bill and to get deposit the actual amount of the bill i.e. Rs.4015/- and also to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the harassment and the mental agony suffered by the complainant.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, they appeared and filed the written version having taken preliminary objections interalia; that the complaint is not maintainable as this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is using the electricity connection. It is stated that the complainant is a defaulter of the amount of Rs.1,03,815/- as complainant had failed to pay the consumption charges. It is submitted that as per Electricity Supply Instructions Manual , “ For supply of street lighting supply to Village Panchayat a rebate of twenty five percent over the standard tariff shall be admissible and if the total number of units consumed in the whole year are less than those which would have been consumed, if the lamps had been lit on an average of 8 hours per night over the whole year, the PSPCL shall charge for the difference between the stipulated units and units actually consumed at tariff rates. The units which would have been consumed in a calendar year shall be calculated on the basis of sanctioned load or connected load detected, whichever is higher”. It is averred that when the consumption of the complainant was found less then the account of the complainant was overhauled by the OPs and the bill was sent as per the Rules and Regulations of the PSPCL.

4. It is averred that the complainant had issued a cheque No.046634 for the amount of Rs.1,07,830/- of State Bank of Patiala for the sake of depositing the bill but the cheque was returned back with the remarks “payment stopped by the drawer”. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs and the amount was rightly charged from the complainant under the Rules and Regulations of the PSPCL. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. In order to prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence copy of resolution, Ex.C1, bill dated 24.12.2013, Ex.C2, receipt dated 10.1.2014,Ex.C3, bill dated 24.2.2013, Ex.C4, affidavit of Parkash Kaur, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

6. On the other hand, the OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Er.Amandeep Dhindsa, calculation sheet, Ex.OP1/2,cheque return memo Ex.OP1/3 and closed the evidence.

7. The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the Rule SVIII.6, Annual Minimum Charges of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual is against the principal of save energy and the mandatory measures issued by the State Government .The ld. counsel pleaded that complainant is using CLF bulbs for the street lights for 8 hours every night therefore the annual consumption of the electricity has gone down. The ld. counsel argued that OPs have imposed the arrears of Rs. 1,07,830/- because the annual consumption of the electricity was not consumed at tariff rate/sanctioned load. He stated that the OPs are charging the said arrear because the complainant has consumed less electricity, in other words the complainant is being penalized for saving energy by installing CLF bulbs. The ld. counsel stated that the act and conduct of the OPs prove that they have adopted unfair trade practice and committed deficiency of service by imposing Rs. 1,07,830/- as arrears for saving electricity for which complainant deserves to be compensated. The ld. counsel further relied on the case laws; in case The Bihar State Electricity Board & others Versus Smt.Gayatri Devi 2014(1)CLT 65 , in which it has been held, “ Electricity, complainant obtained electricity connection from Board for running flour Mill, under minimum guarantee scheme, It was an obligation of Board to supply electricity for a particular period of time without any break, Board failed to supply continued electricity, Contention of complainant that Board is not legally authorized to charge electrical consumption bill on the basis of minimum guarantee tariff, Complainant challenged the inflated amount of the bills, on the basis of minimum guarantee charges, as well as in respect of fuel charges, The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to provide revised electric bills to the complainant for actual consumption and the fuel surcharge is also to be revised on the basis of Minimum Guarantee charges, The fuel surcharge is also to be revised on the basis of actual consumption charges and that as per the revised electric bill, the line should be restored immediately”

8. The ld. counsel for the OPs has submitted that the complainant is a defaulter as complainant has failed to deposit the charges vide bill dated 24.02.2014 i.e Ex-C4.The ld. counsel stated that the said bill has been issued keeping in view the Rules and Regulations issued by PSPCL.The ld. counsel pleaded that the details with regard to the amount being charged has been elaborately mentioned in the calculation chart i.e Ex-OP1/2.The ld. counsel argued that the complaint of the complainant deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

9. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings, evidence led by the parties, we find force in the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. It is evident from the bills and receipt i.e Ex-C2 and C3 that the complainant had been regularly paying the said bills. It is also evident from calculation chart i.e Ex-OP1/2 that the current bill was Rs.4545, the relevant part is reproduced below;

“Difference =132184-42309=89875.”

“Current bill =4545+ surcharge(9395) =103815”

10. From the aforesaid calculation it shows that the complainant has been charged for using less electricity. It has come to our notice that the Punjab Government vide Notification dated 26.12.2012 has made it mandatory to use CLF,the relevant part of the same is reproduced below:

“GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT AND NONCONVENTIONAL ENERGY Notification The 26th DECEMBER, 2012 No. 10/174/2012/STE(3)/4725 .

3. ENERGY CONSERVATION: Conservation of energy in domestic, commercial, agriculture, transportation and industrial sectors can lead to major savings in terms of reduced energy consumption thereby leading to bridge the energy demand supply gap in the state. There is a potential of saving of energy upto 20-25% in different sectors of the economy in the state. Energy Conservation Measures shall be implemented and enforced in the state in accordance with the provisions contained in the Energy Conservation Act- 2001 by PEDA, in consultation with Bureau of Energy Efficiency, Ministry of Power, Govt. of India. Punjab has issued notifications for mandatory use of CFL, Roof Top Solar Water Heating Systems, BIS approved & minimum BEE 4 Star Labeled pump sets and promotion of energy efficient buildings. Demo projects have been initiated for development of energy efficiency in municipal street lighting, water pumping & existing Govt. buildings. Use of BEE Star Labeled electrical appliances in all government organizations has also been mandated.”

11. In view of the aforesaid Notification the OPs could not charge the complainant for saving electricity by installing CLF bulbs in the street lights. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the case law relied upon by the ld. counsel for the complainant, we find that the arrears imposed vide bill dated 24.02.2014 upon the complainant are in violation of the aforementioned Notification issued by Government of Punjab. Thus the present complaint is accepted and the OPs are directed to only charge the actual consumption charges, as stated in the calculation chart i.e Ex-OP1/2. However no compensation can be granted to the complainant, as Gram Panchayat is not a natural person, in view of the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court,in a case M/s. Sikka Papers Ltd Vs National Insurance Company III(2009)CPJ 90(SC) wherein it has been held that “a Company cannot claim damages for mental harassment as it is a natural person”. The OPs are directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

12. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 17.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:18.03.2015

 

(A.P.S.Rajput)

President

 

 

(Veena Chahal)

Member