Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/186

Rajinder singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M.S.Sethi Adv.

11 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:186 dated 12.04.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 11.09.2023.

 

Rajinder Singh Sittal, NRI 78 years S/o. Dhanwant Singh, Flat Number 296, M.I.G., Dugri-1, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division–Model Town, Ludhiana through Xen.                                                                                                                                                                                       …..Opposite party 

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. M.S. Sethi, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the holder of electricity connection having account No.3002771774 under domestic tariff policy at his house which is installed outside the premises and he has been regularly paying electricity charges as per bills issued by the opposite party. The complainant stated the he received previous bills Ex. C1 to Ex. C13, Ex. C17, Ex. C29, Ex. C34 and Ex. C46, which were found excessive. The complainant and his wife are living in USA being NRI and they only visited India in the past five years for caring their property and to meet their relatives and most of the time their house remained locked. As such, finding the bills excessive, the complainant made written letters/complaints dated 04.02.2016, 22.05.2016, 28.06.2017, 30.08.2017, 31.09.2017, 05.02.2018, 01.03.2018, 13.03.2018, 19.03.2018, 20.03.2018. 18.04.2018, 02.05.2018, 14.05.2018 to the opposite party regarding excessive electricity bills, which were personally received by the officials of the opposite party, upon which the concerned JE was directed to visit for site verification with LCR etc. but till date opposite party failed to visit and check the excessive consumption at the premises of the complainant. In letter dated 13.03.2018, the complainant specifically stated that he had shifted to America and occasionally live in their flat as and when they visit India. Moreover, he disclosed that he received bill for 124 units for the period 27.12.2017 to 28.02.2018 when he returned back to India on 18.01.2018 and he also received bill dated 21.02.2018 with zero reading. However, the previous bills were for the period 23.10.2017 to 27.12.2017 for 285 units, 26.08.2017 to 23.10.2017 for 425 units, 23.06.2017 to 26.08.2017 for 662 units were found excessive as no one was residing in the said house before 18.01.2018. The electronic equipments were disconnected during the said period and there was no excess load than the sanctioned load. The complainant requested the opposite party to correct the bills and his bill was required to be adjusted as he has made the payment in advance. The concerned JE also prepared some reports to avoid his liability which are not binding on the complainant. The complainant further stated that he has paid approximately Rs.46,0232/- ion cash and through cheques, the details of which is as under:-

Date of payment	Amount
03.06.2016	Rs.10,000/-
12.07.2016	Rs.5,000/-
03.11.2016	Rs.2,650/-
09.01.2017	Rs.1,440/-
23.02.2017	Rs.5,000/-
10.03.2017	Rs.5,000/-
28.06.2017	Rs.2,000/-
19.03.2018	Rs.11,112/-
30.04.2018	Rs.1,180/- = 43,382/-
31.08.2018	Rs.2,490/-
24.02.2019	Rs.150/- = 46,022/-

 

According to the complainant the opposite party earlier has given the relief by allowing refund through adjustment in the bills of 2015, January 2016 & March 2016, Jun 2016, 10/2016/ 4/2017, 8/2017 etc. and also adjusted such refund amount against inflated and wrong reading bills which were never utilized by the complainant as he used to live outside India and the premises was locked. However, the opposite party claimed illegal amount under the head “Arrears Curr. Fin. Yr”  despite paying huge amount of Rs.46,022/- by the complainant during the past two years instead of refund. According to the complainant, the opposite party is misusing the supply while connecting with the meter of his account number 3002771774 as the meter is installed outside the premises of the complainant. The opposite party failed to inspect and verify the matter of consuming electricity by his electric connection as he lives outside India and the opposite party is guilty of negligence and deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice. The complainant further stated that earlier complaint No.3 of 2018 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one. Thereafter, the matter was referred to DSC for settlement of refund of amount of Rs.20,216/- deposited by the complainant but the DSC has denied to refund the said amount. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the opposite party to inspect, investigate the matter for issuing consumption bills for that period when the complainant was out of India and premises was under locked by holding the erring officials responsible. Further, the bills from 5/2018 to 5/2016 and subsequent bill be quashed with direction to opposite party to charge the bills as per actual reading or as per minimum basis for the period. The complainant further prayed to direct opposite party to adjust/refund the amount of Rs.20,216/-  along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint. The opposite party stated that they rightly issued the bills to the consumer which relates to regular consumption charges against the units whatsoever consumed by the consumer during the period whatsoever challenged by the consumer through this complaint. The opposite party further stated that the electricity connection was checked on the request of the complainant vide LCR No.27/757 dated 22.05.2018 as per rules and regulations of the power com. and at the time of checking, the concerned official found and reported that nothing was observed that the electricity of the connection in question was used by the third party. Even another checking was also conducted vide LCR No.100/755 dated 08.08.2018 and at that time the seals were found affixed and the connected load was 2.880 KW. Thereafter, on the application moved by the complainant to the opposite party, his case was referred to the Dispute Settlement Committee who on 07.09.2018 decided that the disputed amount which was already paid by the complainant is recoverable. The committee further ordered that since the complainant is NRI so direction is required to be issued to the Meter Reader and Field Staff who assured about the care of the meter of the complainant so that no unauthorizedly use of electricity be made. The entire amount of bills relate to regular consumption charges, which the complainant is liable to pay.

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite party has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has 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. C1to Ex. C44 and Ex. C46 are the copies of the bills, letters etc., Ex. C45 is the copy of statement of the complainant for withdrawing the complaint and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. M.P. Singh, Additional SE, Model Town Division (Special) PSPCL, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of order of Dispute Settlement Committee 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 complainant claimed himself to be a Non Resident Indian, had been challenging the bills issued to him being excessive and arbitrary since February 2016 till the filing of the present complaint by making representations to the officials of the opposite party mainly on the ground that he does not reside in India and so these bills do not reflect the actual consumption. For this purpose, the complainant had earlier filed a consumer complaint No.3 of 2018 which was withdrawn by him on 28.08.2018 by stating that his grievance has been referred to Dispute Settlement Committee by the opposite party. The order of Dispute Settlement Committee is produced by the complainant as Ex. C43 and Ex. C44. Perusal of its contents shows that the earlier complaints were dealt by the opposite party and on two occasions, LCR No.27/755 dated 22.05.2018 and LCR No.100/755 dated 08.08.2018 were got conducted. It was found that the complainant is availing connected load of 2.880 KW and its seals are intact and these LCR reports further ruled out the unauthorized use by any third person. During this process, the complainant had been depositing the amount for which he allegedly raised disputes and he sought refund of Rs.20,216/-  from the opposite party  from the proceedings before Dispute Settlement Committee. However, the members of Dispute Settlement Committee were unanimous in holding that the complainant has consumed the electricity for which the bill has been rightly issued. So from the above said facts and circumstances, it appears that the complainant is litigating for the sake of litigation and could not substantiate his allegations. The bills pertain to the regular consumption of electricity are in consonance with the requirements as per weather conditions. So the initial onus to prove the contents of the complaint was on the complainant for which he has miserably failed to discharge.

7.                In this regard, reference can be made to SGS India Ltd. Vs Dolphin International Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.5759 of 2009 decided on 06.10.2021 (LL 2021 SC 544) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby it has been held as under:-

’19.  The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

In the above cited case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has placed reliance on its own judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. whereby it has been held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent.”

‘20. This Court in a Judgment reported as Indigo Airlines v. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors. (LL 2021 SC 544) held the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complaint. This Court held as under:-

“28. In our opinion, the approach of the Consumer Fora is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the ground staff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The Consumer Fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service.”

In the given facts and circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party by any cogent and convincing evidence.

8.                 As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                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:11.09.2023.

Gobind Ram.