ORDER

(S.P.GARG, MEMBER)

1.                The present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Smt.Bhupinder Kaur w/o Sh.Sukhjeet Singh, Resident of Village Fatehgarh Gujjran, Tehsil and District Ludhiana (hereinafter to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman/Managing Director and others (hereinafter to be referred as ‘OPs’)-directing them to withdraw the said illegal demand raised by them and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of financial as well as mental harassment and also to pay cost of litigation as well as cost of counsel to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is permanent resident of Village Fatehgarh Gujjran, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and an electric connection bearing no.W42HP220903A is installed in the premises of the complainant in the name of complainant and complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly as per the consumption. The complainant belongs to scheduled caste community and she is getting the benefits of exemption of 200 Unit per month on consumption of electricity. However, the complainant received the electricity bill no.1191 dated 12.09.14 issued by the Ops regarding consumption of electricity for the period of 23.06.14 to 12.09.14 i.e. for about 2-1/2 months. As per the  said electricity bill, the old consumption is shown to be 5549 units and new consumption shown as 6078 units, meaning thereby that the total consumption of electricity for the said period is 529 units. But the Ops raised/created a demand of Rs.8161/- without disclosing any reason for the same or how the sum has been calculated or worked upon. This demand of the OPs is totally illegal, void abinitio and has been created without any right or justification and is liable to be set-aside as since the date for installation of electric meter, the complainant is regularly paying the bills. After receiving the above said illegal bill, the complainant immediately approach the Ops to know about the illegal demand raised by the OPs and requested them to cancel/deduct the said demand for the bill. But the OPs did not give any satisfactory reply and failed to explain the reason for a huge bill amount generated by them. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. In this case on 7.8.13 the father-in-law of the complainant written an application to the OPs with the request to charge the amount of the electric connection bearing account no.HP-22/0802 from the account no.HP-22/0903 and HP-22/1002 as both the connections are used by his sons separately. Accordingly on the request of the consumer, the concerned officials of the OPs visited the premises of Sardool Singh, father-in-law of the complainant and confirmed the facts stated by Sardool Singh in his application. Accordingly on the basis of the aforesaid request of Sardool Singh father-in-law of the complainant, the OPs added the amount of Rs.6318/- in sundry column and demanded the same from the consumer in her regular bill for the month January 2014 and thereafter upto September 2014 after adding the surcharge and regular consumption charges and now as sum of Rs.8320/- is due against the complainant. The demand of the OPs is legal and genuine and the same was demanded by the OPs from the complainant as per the written request of Sardool Singh father in law of the complainant. On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant has failed to pay the amounts of the bills since January, 2014. Further admitted to the extent that on 12.2.14 the OPs issued the bill with the demand of Rs.8161/- against 529 units. The said demand is legal and genuine. Further submitted that the complainant has not made any payments of the bills to the OPs since January 2014. The bill in dispute is not the present consumption bill, but the same is the arrears of the previous months as the complainant failed to deposit the bills since January, 2014. Denying the contents of all other paras, Ops prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Ld. counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also submitted the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for OPs has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Kewal Singh, Officiating Assistant Executive Engineer, City West Division (Special), Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Ludhiana Ex.RA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and also submitted the documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.

5.                Ld. counsel for both the counsel argued orally. Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that complainant belongs to scheduled caste community and she was getting the benefits of exemption of 200 units per month on the consumption of electricity and the consumption for the period under dispute is 529 units. But the Ops have raised the demand of Rs.8161/- without disclosing any reason, which is much in excess for the 529 units consumed by the complainant.

6.                Refuting the averments of Ld. counsel for the complainant, Ld. counsel for OPs argued that earlier electric connection bearing no.HP-22/0802 was in the name of Sardool Singh, which was installed in the premises of the Sardool Singh as well as his family, where his sons alongwith the complainant are also residing. He got his own connection closed and thereafter got two new connections bearing account nos.W42HP-22/1002 and W42HP-22/0903 and as per Ex.R1 Sardool Singh submitted his request to charge his balance amount from these two new electric connections and subsequently the OPs charged Rs.6318/-, which was infact the consumption charges consumed by the family of the complainant including Sardool Singh. As such, all the arrears which accrued since January, 2014 are included in the bill under dispute. The complainant as well as her family members including her father-in-law was bound to pay the same, since the consumption is qua the same premises, where all of them are residing. As per Ex.R4 period-wise split of the consumption charges from 01/2014 to 09/2014 has also clearly defined the consumption without any doubt whatsoever.

7.                We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant as well as defence taken by the Ops and also perused the entire record placed on file.

8.                It is evident that the sundry charges levied by the OPs to the extent of Rs.6318/- are for the previous period during which the electricity power has been consumed by the complainant as well as her family members. So, there is no illegality in realising old arrears for the period from January, 2014 to September, 2014.

9.                Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being false and frivolous, as such, no order as to cost is passed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

                   (S.P.Garg)                                         (R.L.Ahuja)

                     Member                                             President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:14.01.2015 

Hardeep Singh