Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/30

Amarjit Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab state Power Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Chhabra

20 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:30 dated 19.01.2021.                                                 Date of decision: 20.06.2023.

 

Amarjit Arora aged about 83 years resident of House no.B-V-277, Chowk Mahdopuri, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Commissioner.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sunder Nagar Division, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 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. Gaurav Chhabra, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Varinder Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

1.                In brief, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is using commercial electricity  meter having contract A/c. No.3001187229, consumer No.E2200020517P in the name of Faqir Chand at premises bearingNo.B-V-277, Chowk Madhopuri, Ludhiana. According to the complainant, he has been paying the electricity charges for its usage. During the lockdown the complainant did not use the electricity but the officials of the opposite parties had sent one false and frivolous electricity bill under LVSM for the period from 24.01.2020 to 30.09.2020 amounting to Rs.22,620/-. The complainant further stated that he has not used the said electricity during that period as he was residing with his child at Sonipat and even had not consumed more than 10 units. Thereafter, he deposited Rs.5000/- with opposite parties with request to deduct the electricity charges as the same did not belong to the complainant but the opposite parties did not accept the request of the complainant. The complainant moved an RTI application for demanding detail of the electricity meter but no reply has been given till date which amounts to deficiency in service, malpractice and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainant is entitled to compensation. In the end, the complainant has prayed for treating the bills as illegal and cancelled and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant having no locus standi, the complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency in service on their part. The opposite parties alleged that the electricity connection bearing account No.3001187229 is in the name of Sh. Faqir Chand and the same is a commercial connection. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. According to the opposite parties, the entire amount relates to the regular consumption charges which the consumer has not paid. The meter of the consumer became defective as per meter reading dated 30.09.2020. Previously the bills were on N-code and the consumer was billed for average basis. The consumer has not paid the previous bills from 04.02.2020 so previous balance was added in the bill of 08.2020 i.e. Rs.13,670/-. The consumer had the option to put of this case before the Dispute Settlement Committee, but he has not availed that remedy and filed the present complaint. The consumer made part payments and again failed to pay the bill for 02/2021, 04/2021, 06/2021 and 07/2021. The opposite parties further stated that the entire amount claimed is the energy charges and they have not committed any deficiency in service.

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties stated that the connection in question is an NRS connection and the complainant has not made the payment of regular consumption charges. The bills were sent on average basis because the meter was found defective on 30.09.2020 and at that time a total amount of Rs.22,620/- was payable. All the bills are current bills and no extra or sundry charges were demanded. The opposite parties stated that the defective meter was replaced on 18.10.2020 with a new meter on 19.10.2020 but the new meter also became defective and the same was also replaced on 30.06.2021. The opposite parties have denied is any deficiency of service and 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. C1 is the copy of appeal in RTI application, Ex. C2 is the bill dated 08.08.2020, Ex. C3 is the bill dated 28.11.2020, Ex. C4 is the copy of memo No.4941 dated 03.09.2020 sent by PIO to Addl. S.E. Sunder Nagar Division, Ludhiana, Ex. C5 to Ex. C7 are the postal receipts, Ex. C8 and Ex. C9 are the copies of RTI applications, Ex. C10 is the copy of bill dated 24.01.2020, Ex. C11 is the copy of bill dated 18.01.2019 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. Sukaran Singh, Senior Executive Engineer, City Central Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of  consumer account statement, Ex. R2 is the copy of meter reading statement, Ex. R3 is the copy of bill dated 01.10.2020, Ex. R4 is the copy of bill dated 28.11.2020, Ex. R5 is the copy of bill dated 30.06.2021 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.                Admittedly, the electricity connection bearing No.3001187229 installed in the name of one Faqir Chand and it is being used by the complainant. The meter in question was found defective on 30.09.2020 and it was removed and replaced on 18.10.2020 and new meter was installed on 19.10.2020. The complainant was not satisfied with the functioning of newly installed meter and it was again replaced on 30.06.2021. At the time when the meter was found defective, a bill of Rs.22,683/- was raised which included an amount of Rs.13,670/- of previous bill dated 04.02.2020. Previously the bills were issued on average basis by the opposite parties. The complainant has leveled just bald and vague allegations that he has not consumed the electricity and bill is exaggerated. Moreover, the complainant has concealed the material facts that he has not paid the previous bills to the impugned bill under reference. He has also not fully paid the current bills from January 2021 till July 2021. Although the part payments made by the complainant was not denied by the opposite parties. However, the complainant has failed to pin point how the demand made by the opposite parties is illegal and what are the provisions/rules and regulations which have not been complied with by the opposite parties before issuing the bill in question. The complainant has failed to discharge the initial onus of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 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 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 to defective 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.

7.                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.

 

 

 

8.                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:20.06.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Amarjit Arora Vs Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd.            CC/21/30

Present:       Sh. Gaurav Chhabra, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Varinder Kumar, 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:20.06.2023.

Gobind Ram.