Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/403

Sarwan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M.S.Sethi Adv.

07 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:403 dated 22.08.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 07.02.2023.

 

Sarwan Kumar S/o. Joginder Mishra, R/o. 120-B, Basant Vihar, Kakowal Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                           .…Complainant

                                                Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Unit-1, East Circle, East City, Sunder Nagar Division, Ludhiana through its 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 complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party against the electricity account No.3003311646(SP) under Small Power supply  at his premises for running 2 printing press machinery with sanctioned load of 15 KW for printing work at small scale with sale turnover around Rs.5 Lac yearly for self employment and livelihood with help of two persons. He has been regularly paying consumption charges to the opposite party. The complainant stated that opposite party vide bill dated 22.04.2019 claimed sundry charges of Rs.1,02,222/- and on visit, the opposite party disclosed that said sundry charges related to account No.3002807730 (NRS) in the name of Sharwan Kumar and being defaulter in paying of electricity charges of the said connection, same are transferred to the present account of the complainant. The complainant further stated that he is not liable to pay the disputed amount against electricity consumption charges used by any other person and the opposite party is debarred from claiming previous arrears/outstanding/dues of other account from the complainant. There is no provision in the Electricity Act/regulation/rules etc. authorizing the opposite party to recover the dues of one account from the other account even if the consumer is same as such, demand by the opposite party is illegal, arbitrary and amounts to violation of rules/regulation/EA2003 etc. The complainant further stated that on demanding calculation/details of sundry charges, the opposite party disclosed that the demand of Rs.1,02,222/- relates to bimonthly period of the year 2016-2017 of account No.3002807730 (NRS) and due to non-payment of such charges, said account stands disconnected in the year 2017 as such said demand is time bared which has been transferred to the account of the complainant. The complainant has no liability against the alleged outstanding demand of opposite party against the defaulter account as he has his own present electricity connection No.3003311646 (SP) under small power supply whereas the defaulter account No.3002807730 (NRS) was of NRS category. The complainant stated that the opposite party disclosed that just on acting on the advise of concerned JE etc. they transferred the due of said connection into account of the complainant which has been illegally imposed on the complainant without serving any show cause notice giving opportunity to defend the same. The opposite party has been demanding the sundry charges in next billing after 4/2019, compelled and threatened the complainant to disconnection of the connection and the said act of the opposite party amounts to negligence/deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the complainant has prayed for setting aside the sundry charges of rs.1,02,222/- in bill dated 04/2019 and also to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.7500/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on their part. The opposite party alleged that their concerned official checked the defaulting connection No.3002807730 due to defaulting amount vide CR No.40/1721 dated 18.03.2019 and found and reported that the site checked due to defaulting amount. he further reported that there is no meter of the consumer at the site and there is one another meter of the consumer lying installed and the account number is  3003311646 of SP category. He further reported that the action will be taken as per the latest instruction of the PSPCL. Accordingly, on the basis of said report, the defaulting amount of Rs.1,01,170/- shifted to account No.3003311646 vide sundry register No.345/105/436-A and the said amount has been demanded by the opposite party from the consumer vide bill dated 22.04.2019. Since the complainant was the consumer of electric connection No.3002807730 which was lying installed in the same premises where the electric connection No.3003311646 is in running condition as such the consumer is liable to pay the amount in question.

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite party alleged that after receiving the report of the concerned JE, they debited the defaulting amount into the electric connection of the complainant which is in running condition as both the connection was/is in the same premises and consumer of the both connection is same. 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 she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 are the copies of bills dated 22.04.2019, 22.07.2019 respectively and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. Bajinder Singh Sidhu Additional SE, Sunder Nagar Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana  along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of  report dated 18.03.2019, Ex. R2 is the copy of register, Ex. R3 is the copy of bill 25.08.2019, Ex. R4 is the copy of disconnection order dated 19.07.2015, Ex. R5 is the copy of account statement of connection No.003002807730, Ex. R6 is the account statement of connection No.003003311646 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.                Undisputedly, the electric connection bearing account No.3002807730 (NRS) in respect of which the outstanding consumption charges of Rs.1,02,222/- were due stands in the name of the complainant. It is not disputed that the connection No.3002807730 (NRS) has already been disconnected due to non-payment of outstanding consumption charges. The complainant has alleged that the demand made by the opposite party is illegal as he had been regularly paying all the previous bills of his account number. The complainant has failed to pin point how the demand made by the opposite party is illegal and what are the provisions/rules and regulations which have not been complied with by the opposite party before issuing the bill of additional demand of Rs.1,02,222/- The complainant has failed to discharge the intial onus of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 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.”

Further conjoint reading of documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R4 shows that the calculation was made in accordance with the provisions of law and same were duly communicated to the complainant. As such, the additional demand of Rs.1,02,222/-  is legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

7.                Reference can be made to Civil Appeal No.7235 of 2009 in M/s. Prem Cottex Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 05.10.2021, it has been held in para No.20 and 21 of the judgment, which is reproduced as under:-

20. The fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is entitled to deal with the complaint of a consumer, either in relation todefective goods or in relation to deficiency in services. The word “deficiency” is defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as follows:­

“2(1)(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;

21. The raising of an additional demand in the form of “short assessment notice”, on the ground that in the bills raised during a particular period of time, the multiply factor was wrongly mentioned, cannot tantamount to deficiency in service. If a licensee discovers in the course of audit or otherwise that a consumer has been short billed, the licensee is certainly entitled to raise a demand. So long as the consumer does not dispute the correctness of the claim made by the licensee that there was short assessment, it is not open to the consumer to claim that there was any deficiency. This is why, the National Commission, in the impugned order correctly points out that it is a case of “escaped assessment” and not “deficiency in service”.

In view of the law laid down in the above cited law and as per facts and circumstances of the case, 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 the order be supplied to the 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:07.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Sarwan Kumar Vs Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd.                    CC/19/403

Present:       Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 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:07.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.