BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.500 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 14.10.2019

      Date of Decision: 21.02.2023

Sunil Thomas, 60 years S/o Sh. C. K. Thomas R/o 48-Jaswant Nagar, Garha, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala,     through its Chairman.

2.       The Assistant Engineer, Sub Division Commercial Units No.5,         Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Birring, Jalandhar      Cantt.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Sh. Chandandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.

                   Sh. S. K. S. Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is consumer of electricity vide electric connection no.300827816 installed at residential premises of complainant at House No. 48, Jaswant Nagar, Garha, Jalandhar, having a load of 2.48 KW. The said connection is in the name of father of complainant who is 92-93 years of age and is ailing and wishes to spend his evening of his life in his home town at Kerala. The complainant is paying the bills issued by the OPs and OPs are accepting the same without any demur or objection. The complainant is the beneficiary of the services of the OPs, being the actual user of the electricity. The OPs are engaged in providing services of electricity for charges and connection of the complainant falls within the jurisdiction of the OP No. 2. The connection of the complainant is regularly checked by the officers of the PSPCL from time to time at least once in every two months while taking the reading of consumption for issuance of energy bills and no defect has been pointed out either in the connection or in the meter. The bills issued by the OPs also show the status of the meter as "O" which means OK. The meter is installed outside the premises of complainant is sealed MCB Box. In the month of March 2019, the meter lying installed at the above said connection was replaced by the opposite parties on the pretext that meter is burnt and reading is not visible, however at the time of removal/replacement of meter, the meter was neither packed nor sealed as per the requirements of the law and the persons/officials who came to replace the meter, took the meter in naked condition by placing the same in the bucket of the scooter. Suddenly the complainant has received a bill dated 05- 09-2019 wherein demand of Rs.1,06,964/- is made under the head sundry charges. On receipt of the said bill, the complainant called upon the office of the OP No. 2 and requested for the detail/basis of the amount so demanded in sundry charges. The complainant showed the entire paid bills upto date and clarified that his connection is being checked regularly by the staff of different wings of Powercom and no divergence has ever been pointed out. If there had been any inconsistency/variation, it must have come to the notice of said officers and they would have reported the said facts. The officers of OP No.2 agreed to the contention of complainant but showed their inability to help the complainant in the said matter as the amount has been demanded under the instructions of enforcement. The complainant requested for the alleged copy of checking of enforcement but the same was declined on the ground that copy of alleged checking of enforcement is yet to be received from the office of enforcement, Jalandhar. The complainant was surprised at the working of the OPs. The complainant was threatened that in case the demanded amount was not deposited the connection of the complainant shall be disconnected. No notice was issued/delivered or communication was ever made with the complainant by the OPs before issuing the alleged demand. No inquiry or show cause or recovery proceedings have been conducted by the defendants before issuing alleged bill. No opportunity of hearing was accorded to complainant before making the demand. The OPs have acted in gross forbiddance to their own rules and regulations wherein it is stipulated that before initiating proceedings or making any demand against any consumer, competent authority must issue show cause, quote the relevant regulation under which the said action is being initiated. The complainant was not called during the alleged checking of enforcement. No notice was served to complainant before alleged checking of enforcement. The OPs in entire sequence of events have acted unilaterally in travesty to principal of natural justice. The said illegal and unlawful acts of the OPs has caused a lot of mental tension, agony, inconvenience and harassment to the complainant besides financial loss and OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for same and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and the demand of Rs.1,06,964/- raised vide bill dated 05-09-2019 under the head sundry charges, is liable to be cancelled/set aside and the same be waived off and further the amount, which the complainant had to deposit to save his connection from disconnection, is liable to be refunded to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and has been filed by the complainant just to harass the answering OPs. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties. It is further averred that the OP No.2 in neither the juristic person nor can be sued. It is further averred that the complainant not approached the court with the clean hands and intentionally and deliberately concealed the material facts from this Commission. The Report of Asstt. Executive Engineer, Enforcement No:2, Shakti Sadan, Jalandhar made vide Enforcement Inquiry Register bearing no:696 dated 5/9/2019 qua the checking of the connection of consumer dated 24/7/2019. The detail inquiry was conducted by the officers of the PSPCL and during the inquiry it came into the notice of the authorities that amount claimed through bill from the consumer of Rs.1,06,940/- against the 14455 KWH electricity consumed is correct. But it is matter of very strange that on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents the said entries were reversed, while putting the wrong signatures of the then JE & SDO. Accordingly the demand was raised from the consumer is legal and valid one, which the consumer is liable to pay. It is further averred that no cause of action arose to the complainant against the answering OPs rather cause of action arisen to the answering OPs against the complainant for dragging the answering OPs in the false, frivolous and wanted litigation. The Complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable in the present forum. The present complaint has been filed by the consumer, before this Commission with the sole motive, just to put pressure on the OPs, so that the answering OPs will not make the recovery of the outstanding aforesaid amount, which is public money. It is further averred that the complainant has suppressed material facts from this Commission and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. Even the complainant is stopped by his act, conduct, admission and omission from filing the present complaint. Hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed, with heavy costs. This Commission is having no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present case. The allegations leveled in the complainant needs details adjudication by leading oral and documentary evidence. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.  

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant has alleged that he is the consumer of the electricity connection No.300827816, which is in the name of his father. This fact has been denied by the OPs. They have alleged that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not the consumer of this electricity connection rather the consumer is Mr. B. K. Thomas. As per the bills produced on record by the OPs, the meter is in the name of Sh. B. K. Thomas, 48, Jaswant Nagar Garha, Jalandhar Cantt. The complainant has alleged that he is using the electricity. The connection is in the name of his father and the complainant has paid the bills issued by OPs and OPs accepted the same without any demur or objection. But the objection of the OPs that the complainant is not consumer, is not tenable as as per the amended supply code in the regulation 11.6.3 the word ‘may’ has been used, which shows that it is not mandatory to get the connection transferred in the name of heirs after death. Even otherwise, as per the Supply Code, 2014 and as per notification dated 29.06.2007 by Pb. State Electricity Regulatory, “the ‘Consumer’ means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a distribution licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under the Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a license, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;”. Thus, the complainant is using the electricity and as per the Supply Code and Notification, the complainant is consumer and hence the present complaint is maintainable.

7.                The complainant has alleged that the electricity connection of the complainant is regularly checked by the officers of the OP and all the bills have been paid by the complainant. In the month of March, 2019 the meter was replaced by the OPs on the pretext that the meter is burnt and reading is not visible. The complainant has alleged that he was never informed about the fact as to whether the meter was ever got checked from the ME Lab or not as the meter was neither packed nor sealed by the OPs, which is the requirement of the law. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 05.09.2019, wherein demand of Rs.1,06,964/- was made. He has proved the bill Ex.C-4. The Bill Ex.C-4 shows that this bill is for the period from 12 July, 2019 to 05 September, 2019 and in the column of Sundry Charges under the head of SOP Rs.89,580/-, ED + InfraCess Rs.15,644/- and Octroi + CowCess +MT Rs.1740/- and in total, the total bill has been shown as Rs.1,11,010/- and this bill is of 55 days. All the bills Ex.C-5, which is consisting from the page 20 to 30 are of different period. The amount of these bills show as Rs.1810/-, Rs.960/-, Rs.1020, Rs.490/-, Rs.1200/-, Rs.1150/- and last bill was of Rs.6000/- and that was for 08 May to 12 July, 2019 i.e. upto the period from which the impugned bill has been issued. In all these bills against the column of sundry charges, zero has been shown and the status of the meter has been shown as ‘O’ and on page 28, the status has been shown as ‘P’, which is the period from 07.11.2018 to 08.01.2019 and again at page No.30, the meter status has been shown as ‘O’. The OP has proved on record the document Ex.OP-1 to show that the checking of the connection was done on 24.07.2019 and inquiry was conducted. During inquiry, it was found that the reading of the consumption of the complainant was 14,455 units and the entry of Rs.1,06,940/- was reversed by forged signatures. Ex.OP-2 is dated 30.07.2019, where it is mentioned that the display of the meter is faulty and it has been mentioned that the meter was checked internally and the data chip of the circuit plate was found damaged. This report itself shows that no procedure has been followed by the OPs. The OP, as per the Electricity Manual, cannot check the meter internally without following the procedure. Meter is to be checked by the ME Lab and that too in the presence of the complainant, but no procedure has been followed and no inquiry has been conducted nor any action has been taken by the OP against the persons who have allegedly forged the signatures of JE and SDO. Non-following of procedure itself makes the issuance of the bill as invalid. As per the Electricity Supply Regulations 124 under the head ‘Payment of Arrears Not Originally Billed’, which reads as under:-

                   ‘There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed         for some of the dues relating to previous months /years or           otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/Load or        Demand Surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/detected by        the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the Board      employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or        due to application of wrong tariff/multiplication factor or due to           mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc. In       all such cases, separate bills should be issued giving complete     details of the charges levied. Such charges should not be clubbed    in the current bills of the consumer.’

                   Further, as per Commercial Circular No.70/20005 under the head ‘Arrear Bill to the Consumers’, which reads as under:-

                   Various Industrial Consumers Associations have represented to Member/Distribution, PSEB that arrear bills are clubbed with the current energy bills thereby causing       unnecessary harassment to the consumers. Member/Distribution       has taken a very serious view of the same, because as per Sales      Regulation No.102.2 and 124.1 the bill to a consumer on account     of under assessment pointed out by the Internal Audit or the    charges levied as a result of report from Addl. SE/Sr. XEN/AEE (Enforcement/MMTS), should be raised separately and such        arrears should not be clubbed with the current energy bill of the           consumer.

                   It is, therefore, again reiterated that arrears or any other         charges as per these instructions, required to be billed to the       consumers should not be clubbed with the current- energy bills and separate bills giving details should be issued. Strict           compliance of these instructions must be ensured.

                   As per Memo dated 06.12.2019 of PSPCL under the subject ‘To give Supplementary bill of arrears charged to the consumer’, which reads as under:-

                   ‘93.1 There may be certain cases where the consumer is          billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or    otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment or      demand/load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected     by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the     PSPCL employees or due to some defect in the metering      equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/ multiplication         factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities etc.   In all such cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete     details of the charges levied Such charges shall be shown as    arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills shall be issued separately    giving complete details of the charges in regard to slowness of          meter, wrong connections of the meter and application of wrong         tariff/multiplication factor etc. In such cases the copy of relevant         instructions under which the charges have been levied shall also           be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of       cases by consumer forum if approached by the consumer.’

                   It has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, in FA No.1558 of 2011, decided on 19.03.2015, 2015 (2) CLT 222, titled as ‘Jagat Pal Vs. PSPCL Ltd. & Others’, that ‘Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) Electricity - Exorbitant bills Complaint alleging deficiency in service - Failure on part of OP in their duties by not providing any guidance to complainant nor they told him to deposit the meter checking fees for getting the meter tested in the ME Lab - OP was under obligation to get the matter investigated at their own level and take appropriate action to check the working of the meter or to justify the excessive consumption recorded by it on account of some other occasions like marriage function of the complainant - In view of the instructions of the OPs, the exception in variations in consumption is to be verified after entering the same in the variation register, which was not done by the OPs.’

                    In the present case, also no separate bill as per the requirement of the regulations has been issued nor the meter was ever tested in the ME Lab nor it has been explained to the complainant as to how this exorbitant bill, by adding the sundry charges, has been sent nor the fault of the complainant has been pointed out. So, the impugned bill dated 05.09.2019 is wrong and illegal and the same is hereby set-aside.

8.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the demand of Rs.1,06,964/- raised vide bill dated 05.09.2019 under the head sundry charges is cancelled/set-aside and the amount deposited by him regarding the bill dated 05.09.2019 is ordered to be refunded to the complainant. Further, the OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

21.02.2023         Member                          Member           President