Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/485

Dr.Narinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pujab State Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

H.S.Kohli Adv.

25 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 485 dated 16.10.2019.                                                       Date of decision: 25.01.2023.

 

Dr. Narinder Singh aged 52 years son of late Sh. Kirpal Singh, r/o.167-L, Model Town, Ludhiana. M. No.98785-94990.                                                                                                                                              .…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its CMD.
2. Additional S.E., Model Town Division Special, PSPC Ltd., Ludhiana.                                                                                 …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. H.S. Kohli, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Succinctly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a doctor by profession and is resident of 167-L, Model town, Ludhiana where an electric connection having account No.MT-53/0480K, contract account No.3001924095 is installed in the name of Baljit Kaur, mother of the complainant under the domestic category with sanctioned load of 8.700 KW. Mother of the complainant has already been died and after her death, the complaniant is using electricity from the said connection of Baljit Kaur and regularly paying electricity consumption charges against the bills issued by opposite party No.2. No arrears of any kind is outstanding against the said connection.  The complainant stated that he was shocked to receive bill dated 18.09.2019 from the opposite parties including illegal amount ofRs.18,187/- on account of sundry charges without any detail and explanation and along with current bill total sum of Rs.36,640/- to be paid on or before 01.10.2019 through cheque. The bill also includes the penalty of Rs.733/- and in all the opposite parties demanded Rs.37,373/-. The complainant further stated that after receiving the said bill, he immediately approached the office of opposite party No.2 and requested to withdraw the illegal demand of sundry charges but they refused and directed him to deposit the while bill amount and rather threatened to disconnect the connection after due date. The complainant stated that the opposite parties cannot charge sundry charges of any kind in the current bill and the supplementary bill is required to be issued if any amount is to be charged extra from any consumer . The audit party cannot direct the opposite parties to charge any illegal or excess amount from any consumer. The electric meter was removed by the opposite parties from the premises of the complainant on 02.02.2018 was carried away in loose condition in his absence and was not packed and sealed nor his signatures of his authorized representatives were got on MCO nor the meter was checked in ME Lab in his presence nor any notice was served upon him calling him in ME Lab. The opposite parties have declared on their own that the meter which was removed on the basis of MCO dated 24.01.2018 was defective and thus average was wrongly charged by them on the directions of the audit party. Moreover, the new meter installed in place of old meter by the opposite parties which is electronic type is also running very fast and is recording excessive consumption.  Issuance of inflated bill dated 18.09.2019 has caused great deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the complainant has prayed for quashing and declaring the bill dated 18.09.2019 by  illegal demand of sundry charges Rs.18,187/- as illegal. The complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and refund of Rs.18,187/- along with interest @18% per annum.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections that there is no privity of contract between the parties because as per the record of opposite parties, an electric connection bearing account No.3001924095 is in the name of Baljit Kaur and the complainant is not competent to file the present complaint. The opposite parties also assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability and further alleged that the audit party vide its half margin  No.4 dated 30.04.2019 had pointed out that the accounts of the consumer is required to be overhauled as the meter of the consumer was changed due to defect in the same and it was sent to the ME Lab  vide store challan No.4649 dated 06.02.2018. As per the ME Lab  report vide store challan, the meter was found dead stop. As per the SAP system, the average of 830 units from the period 13.09.2017 to 02.02.2018 had been charged from the consumer. Whereas after watching the consumption date of the consumer for the last year then it come to the conclusion that the average of 3038 units is required to be charged for the period 13.09.2017 to 02.02.2018 as such the accounts of the consumer were overhauled for the said period and an amount of Rs.18,457/- after adjusting the already charged amount is required to be charged from the consumer. The opposite parties further alleged that they issued the bill to the consumer for the amount of Rs.18,187/- under sundry charges in the bill dated 18.09.2019. Since the connection was found dead stop as such the accounts of the consumer were overhauled by the audit party as per the rules from 13.09.2017 to 02.02.2018 on the basis of consumption of previous years.

                   On merits, opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties averred that the complainant never informed about death of his mother and never made any efforts to get changed the electric connection in name of legal heir of Baljit Kaur. The opposite parties issued all the electricity bills in the name of Baljit Kaur and theyused to issue the receipts in the name of Baljit Kaur. Moreover, the complainant has failed todisclose all the names oflegal heirs of Baljit Kaur and it cannot be said that the complainant is the beneficiary of the electricity connection in question. The opposite parties have rightly issued the bill dated 18.09.2019 for a sum ofRs.36,640/- including sundry charges of Rs.18,187/-. The opposite parties alleged that they initially issued supplementary bill to the consumer and when he failed to pay the same, then the opposite parties have no option to debit the said amount in the regular bill of the consumer. The opposite parties have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of death certificate of Baljit Kaur, Ex. C2 is the copy of bill dated 18.09.2019, Ex. C3 is the copy of receipt of Rs.36,640/- dated 30.09.2019, Ex. C4 is he copy of order dated 30.04.2019, Ex. C5 is the part of order dated 30.04.2019 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. M.P. Singh, Additional Superintendent Engineer, Model Town Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana  along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of  order dated 30.04.2019, Ex. R2 is the copy of bill dated 01.12.2022, Ex. R3 is the copy of account statement of contract account No.003001924095  and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.     

6.                The only grievance of the complainant pertains to levying of the sundry charges to the tune of Rs.18,187/- and adding in the current bill which was to be paid on or before 01.10.2019. As per the opposite parties, the account of the complainant was overhauled due to audit objection dated 30.04.2019 Ex. R1. But the opposite parties have not led any evidence to show that the letter was also sent to the complainant or that he was asked to show cause. The counsel for the complainant has drawn the attention of this Commission to the Rule 30.5 of Electricity Supply Code which is reproduced as under:-

          “Chapter IV  Electricity Supply Code

30.5 (b) The bill for arrears in the case of under assessment or the charges levied as a result of checking etc. will be initially tendered separately and will not be clubbed with the current electricity bill. The arrear bill would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrears.”

7.                The opposite parties were required to issue the bill in accordance with the aforesaid rules. Due procedure was not followed by the opposite aprties and the complainant was forced to deposit the amount. The opposite parties were required to convey the parties and the details for which the sundry charges are being levied. As per its statement of objects and reason placed before the Parliament the Act has been enacted to promote and protect the rights of consumer as given in Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act which is reproduced as under:-

“Consumer Rights S. 2(9)

(9) “consumer rights” includes,

(i)      the right to be protected against the marketing of goods, products or services which are hazardous to life and property;

(ii)     the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services, as the case may be, so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices;

(iii)    the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of goods, products or services at competitive prices;

(iv)     the right to be heard and to be assured that consumer’s interest will receive due consideration at appropriate fora;

(v)      the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and

(vi)     the right to consumer awareness.

 

So the complainant’s valuable right to be informed has been violated and the action of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. As such, the demand of sundry charges of Rs.18,187/- is not justified and the same is liable to be quashed. The complainant is also held entitled for composite costs of Rs.10,000/-.

7.                 As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall refund the sundry charges of Rs.18,187/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:25.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Dr. Narinder Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd.           CC/19/485

Present:       Sh. H.S. Kohli, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite parties shall refund the sundry charges of Rs.18,187/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest @8% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:25.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.