Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/615

Harjinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab STate Power Corpn.Limited - Opp.Party(s)

30 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                             C.C. No. 615 of 04.09.2014                                                                                Date of Decision: 30.03.2015

1.Harjinder Singh(now deceased) s/o Kehar Singh r/o VPO Toosa, Tehsil Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana through legal heir wife Kulwant Kaur.

2.Kulwant Kaur w/o Late Harjinder Singh(now deceased) s/ o Kehar Singh r/o VPO Toosa, Tehsil Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana

                                                                                      … Complainants.

                                             Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Sudar, District Ludhiana through XEN.

                                                                                       …Opposite Party

          Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

 

Quorum     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member. 

                   Ms.Babita, Member.

 

Present       Sh.M.S.Sethi, Adv. for complainants.

Sh.A.S.Pahwa, Adv. for OP.

                                                ORDER

SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

1.                Present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by Sh.Harjinder Singh(now deceased) through legal heir i.e.his wife Smt.Kulwant Kaur(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainants’) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Sudar, District Ludhiana through XEN (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OP’)- alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP with the prayer to quash the illegal demands of Rs.10,942/- under sundry charges and Rs.3177/- as arrears besides to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.3500/- as litigation expenses to the complainants.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants are the consumers of OP against the electricity connection bearing account No.U13DT160239K under domestic tariff with connected load 3.3 KW. The OP vide bill dated 29.7.2014 had claimed Rs.10,942/- under sundry charges/arrears head without giving/disclosing any cause/reason and explanation as well as alongwith arrears of Rs.3177/- which is claimed under the sundry head in the current bill amounts to violation of provisions of EA2003/regulation etc., because in case, of claiming arrears/dues etc, the OP is required to issue separate bill disclosing nature, cause/reason of claiming demand as per Regulations 30.5(b) of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission(Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations 2007, the charges on account of arrears or charges levied as a result of checking etc., are required to be tendered separately and are not to be clubbed added in the illegal demand of RS.10,942/- under sundry charges head in the current bill dated 29.7.2014. The complainant however moved an application to the XEN of OP which was forwarded to SA & thereafter, to concerned but no satisfactory reply was given except the report that said amount of Rs.10,942/- is claimed being average against the previous dead meter but the official has not given the details of claimed amount and its period as well as of meter dead whereas, as per complainant, he is not defaulter of any consumption charges and previous bills were paid by him and the complainant has no knowledge of meter dead as no signature on any documents were procured by the OP disclosing the above facts. Claiming the act of raising the demand of Rs.10,942/- and 3177/- being false and illegal, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complainant, Op was duly served and appeared through Sh.A.S.Pahwa, Advocate and filed the written statement, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and merits dismissal. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP. In this case, the meter installed at the premises of the consumer remained dead and for this reason, it was changed vide MCO NO.63/95120 dated 3.1.2014 and the amount of Rs.10,822/- was charged on average charges for the period of six months prior to the date of MCO and thereafter, upto the date of actual change of meter, though the meter remained dead from 7/2012 onwards. The accounts were overhauled on the basis of the load and demand factor as the meter remained dead from 7/2012 on wards and the accounts were overhauled only for the period of six months as per rules. Since the consumer had consumed the electricity and as such, he is liable to pay the amount of average charges. Rs.120/- were added as DCO Fees and the total demand of Rs.10,942/- was raised by way of the notice which the consumer did not receive and was affixed at his door by the Meter Reader and thereafter, the amount was charged in the bill as sundry charges. On merits, the fact regarding the complainant is consumer of answering OP and having the electric meter in question as alleged are not denied. However, it is submitted that the answering OP vide bill dated 29.7.2014 rightly claimed Rs.10,942/- under sundry charges because the complainant failed to pay the said amount claimed through the separate notice. Rs.3131/- are also the arrears of the electricity charges and the complainant is liable to pay Rs.14,073/- to the answering OP. The amount was earlier separately claimed and when the complainant failed to pay the same, the amount was added in the subsequent bill. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying any deficiency in service and all other allegations of the complainants and any deficiency in service on the part of answering OP, answering OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                Learned counsel for the complainants in order to prove the case of the complainants adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit of complainant no.1 Sh.Harjinder Singh as Ex.CW1, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complaint. Further, the learned counsel for the complainants has proved on record documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C4.

5.                On the contrary, in order to rebut the case of the complainants, learned counsel for the OP adduced evidence by placing on record affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Er.Amarjit Singh Grewal, its Senior XEN, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of written reply filed by OP and refuted the case of the complainants. Further, learned counsel for the Op has proved on record documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2.

6.                When the case was fixed for filing the written arguments on 15.1.2015, learned counsel for the complainants had filed an application U/s 13(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for impleading the legal heir of deceased Harjinder Singh complainant which was allowed on 23.1.2015 and thereafter, amended complaint was filed on 18.2.2015. Thereafter, learned counsel for the OP had suffered statement on 17.3.2015 that written statement filed to the original complaint be read as written statement to the amended consumer complaint. 

7.                We have heard the learned rival contention of counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the documents on record very carefully.

8.                It is evident that as per the averments of the complainants made in the complaint that they are having the electricity connection in question and the complainant had no knowledge that his meter was found dead and OP shall be charged from the complainant on average basis for 6 months which is provided under clause 73.1.1 and 73.1.2 under the Electricity Supply Instruction Manual.

9.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the OP has averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP because the complainant never made any payment for the last 2 years i.e. in the year 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and since the meter of the complainant was found to be dead since 7/2012. However, as per the provisions of the clause 73.1.2 of the Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, vide which, charging the consumer for the period the meter remained inoperative is concerned, it was provided that average consumption of last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption as under and higher of the two figures shall be charged to set the consumer’s account right finally.

10.              So, it is apparently clear from the above provision that the consumer can be charged for 6 months on the average of the previous period, in case, the meter remained inoperative. Likewise, in the present case, the raised demand of Rs.10,942/- alongwith Rs.3177/-is legal and genuine inspite of the fact that the complainant had consumed the electricity from the electric connection in dispute for more than 2 years. So, it appears from the evidence of the parties that OP has rightly claimed the aforesaid demands from the complainant and the complainant can be held liable to pay the same. So, there does not appear to be any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

11.              In view of the above discussion, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainants being devoid of any merit with no order as to cost. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

(Babita)                (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

            Member                  Member                       President  

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:30.03.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.