Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/160

Gurcharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Complainant in person

22 Jan 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 160 of 07.03.2018

Date of Decision            :   22.01.2021

 

Gurcharan Singh son of Sh.Sardari Lal, resident of House No.1181/1, Harnam Nagar, Model Town, Ludhiana. 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus        

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

2.Addl. Superintendent Engineer (OP), Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Model Town Extension Division, Unit-2, Ludhiana. 

Opposite parties

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         In person

For OP1                         :         Sh.Yash Paul, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Ex-parte

 

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.              The above named complainant has filed the instant complaint on the allegations that he is a consumer of the OPs having domestic connection No.3002648507, which is installed at his residence with a sanctioned load of 4.940 KW. The complainant has paid all the consumption bills issued by the OPs from time to time and nothing is outstanding against him. It is further alleged that the complainant received a bill No.10992165071321080 dated 07.10.2016 for a sum of Rs.6480/- for the period from 21.08.2016 to 07.10.2016. The said bill included an amount of Rs.4324/- on account of arrears of current financial year. However, no details of such charges given in the bill and nor any reason for recovery of arrears has been given. As per Regulation No.30.1.2 of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters, 2007, the bill-cum-notice for arrears in case of under assessment or the charges levied as a result of checking etc shall be initially tendered separately and shall not be clubbed with the current electricity bill and such notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of arrears. In this manner, the OPs instead of proceeding in accordance with the Electricity Regulation No.30.1.2 issued a clubbed bill. The complainant approached the Additional Superintending Engineer for the redressal of his grievance, but he refused to correct the bill and directed the complainant to deposit the amount first. The complainant was not satisfied with the reasons of the OPs that the amount has been rightly charged on the basis of an Audit Objection No.M.M 44 dated 29.03.2016 raised by the Audit party of the department. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.6480/- under protest and under the fear of disconnection of electric supply by the OPs. As per instruction No.93 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, 2014, separate bills are required to be issued giving the complete details of charges levied and dues relating to the previous months on account of the arrears or on account of wrong application of tariff or multiplication factor. The Ops thus have failed to comply with the instructions issued by their department. In the end, it has been requested that amount of Rs.4324/- charged as arrears in the bill No.1099216J071321180 dated 7.10.2016 be ordered to be refunded along with interest @12% per annum and the complainant be also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- for having suffered mental agony, pain and financial constraints suffered by the complainant on account of the acts and omission on the part of the OPs.

2.                Upon notice, OP2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.05.2018. However, written statement filed on behalf of OP1 and OP2, but the same was treated on behalf of Op1 only vide order dated 28.08.2018. In the written statement filed by OP1, it has been claimed that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant himself has deposited the amount with the OPs after admitting his liabilities. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the bill dated 07.10.2016 has rightly been issued for an amount of Rs.6480/- for the period from 21.08.2016 to 07.10.2016. According to the OPs, earlier the Audit Party vide its half margin No.44 dated 29.03.2016 had pointed out that the amount was chargeable from the consumer. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.4209/- was required to be charged from the complainant on the basis of Audit Party note. On merits, it has also been pleaded that the bill dated 07.10.2016 for an amount of Rs.6480/- was rightly issued and it included an amount of Rs.4324/- on account of arrears, which were sought to be recovered on the basis of the audit party note no.44 dated 29.03.2016. The rest of the averment made in the complaint has been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer made for dismissal of complaint with costs has also been made.

3.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 and thereafter, the complainant closed his evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Er.M.P.Singh, Additional S.E., Model Town Division(Special) of OPs as Ex. RA along with document Ex. R1 and closed the evidence.

5.                The evidence on record has been perused with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties and their rival contentions have also been gone through. No written submissions were, however, made by the parties.

6.                During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Ops has argued that the amount of Rs.4324/- has been included in the disputed bill on the basis of objection of Audit Party and therefore, the charges have been justifiably imposed and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs on that account. On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the OPs have absolutely no right to recover the arrears from the complainant on the basis of Audit objection. Moreover, the bill has been issued against the rules and regulations and the arrears could not have been clubbed in the bill and a separate bill was required to be issued. The counsel for the complainant has further relied upon law laid down in Mohar Singh vs. State of Punjab-2001(3)RCR (Civil)-105 whereby it has been held that liability fastened merely on the basis of audit note is not sustainable.

7.                Having heard the rival contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Commission is of the considered view that it is not disputed that demand was raised regarding recovery of the arrears of Rs.4324/- and the same was raised in the bill Ex.C2 along with consumption charges of the energy consumed by the complainant. As per Electricity Supply Instructions Manual clause No.93.1, if consumer is to be billed for some of the dues relating to the previous months as arrears on account of some observations made by the Engineer Auditor, separate bill shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. However, contrary to the said rules, admittedly the arrears on account of internal audit has been clubbed with the current bill which is not permissible under the instructions manual. Similarly, as per notification dated 5.11.2014 issued by the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission, the bill-cum-notice for arrears in case of under assessment or charges levied as a result of checking shall be tendered separately and shall not be clubbed with the current electricity bill. Under these circumstances, this Commission is of the considered view that act of the OPs in clubbing the amount of arrears of Rs.4324/- on the basis of some audit note is not correct and amounts to deficiency in service and therefore, the demand of Rs.4324/- against the complainant cannot be justified.

8.             As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that amount of Rs.4324/- shall be either refunded to the complainant or be adjusted in the future bills. The complainant is further held entitled to compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.2500/-. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.        

 

                     (Jyotsna Thatai)                                     (K.K.Kareer)

              Member                                        President

Announced in Open Commission

Dated:22.01.2021

Gurpreet Sharma.