| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA CC No.177 of 26-05-2022 Decided on: 19-06-2023 Gurdial Kaur aged about 92 years Wd/o Ran Singh @ Ram Singh R/o H.No.22688, Street No.2, Bhagu Road, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director. Asstt. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Tech-1, Sub Division, Bathinda
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM:- Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present:- For the complainant : Sh.Shaminder Singh, Advocate. For opposite parties : Sh.Gaurav Gaupta, Advocate. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Gurdial Kaur (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before this Commission against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the facts of the complaint as pleaded by the complainant are that her husband Ran Singh @ Ram Singh was holding the electricity connection bearing account No.3001157915 installed in her residential house. He died and now, this connection is being used by the complainant. The complainant has been using the electricity connection and has been paying the bills of the electricity consumption issued by PSPCL from time to time. She deposited the amount of last bill issued by opposite parties. It is alleged that the complainant has received a bill No.500098107429 dated 20.4.2022 from opposite parties for the period from 28.2.2022 to 20.4.2022 showing the consumption of 482 units, but they have illegally and arbitrarily added a sum of Rs.86,000/- in the bill i.e. Rs.73,833/- on account of EC and Rs.14,767/- on account of tax and have issued the total bill for a sum of Rs.90,360/- that is payable by cheque upto 5.5.2022 or in cash/online upto 2.5.2022. It is further alleged that the demand raised by PSPCL for Rs.86,000/- on account of EC and tax in the bill dated 20.4.2022 is totally wrong, illegal, null and void, arbitrary, nonest, against the rules and regulations of PSPCL and principles of natural justice and it is liable to be set-aside/waived/quashed/withdrawn on the grounds that no such amount of Rs.86,000/- is due and payable by the complainant to opposite parties. No details of the amount of Rs.86,000/- i.e. Rs.73,833/- on account of EC and Rs.14,767/- as tax have been furnished by opposite parties in the impugned bill as the complainant has been regularly paying all the bills issued by PSPCL from time to time and there was no arrears in respect of the electricity connection. No separate notice regarding demand of the alleged amount of Rs.86,000/- was ever issued to the complainant by opposite parties, rather it has been illegally and arbitrarily, straight-way added in the current bill. The demand raised by opposite parties is unilateral as on enquiry about the impugned demand by the complainant from the office of opposite party No.2, the complainant came to know that the same has been added on the basis of checking of the old meter that was burnt in year 2013 and was replaced by the officials of the PSPCL. The alleged demand, if any, itself is illegal and hopelessly time barred and meter had burnt in the year 2013 and it was never packed or sealed at the time of removing and taking away by the officials of PSPCL and was never checked in the presence of the complainant. No prior notice was issued to the complainant by opposite parties regarding checking of the meter. Opposite parties had no right to check the burnt meter after such a long time, rather the meter can only be checked within three months from the date of removal in the presence of the connection holder as per rules and regulations of PSPSL. It is further alleged that opposite parties have also failed to provide any opportunity to the complainant of being heard before raising the impugned demand, rather it has been illegally added in the current bill of the complainant. The bill No.500098107429 dated 20.4.2022 is liable to be corrected by reducing/deleting the amount of Rs.86,000/- and opposite parties are liable to be directed to get the balance amount of the bill deposited from the complainant. It is also alleged that the complainant requested opposite parties to delete the amount of Rs.86,000/- from the bill and to get the balance amount deposited from her, but to no effect. Opposite parties are now threatening the complainant to deposit the total amount of Rs.90,360/- including Rs.86,000/- with them otherwise to disconnect the connection, which is in the name of Ram Singh, although they have no right to do so. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to set-aside the impugned demand for Rs.73,833/- on account of EC and Rs.14,767/- as tax, totaling Rs.88,600/- and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and cost of Rs.5500 and to refrain from disconnecting the electricity connection bearing account No.3001157915 insalled in her house. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version and raised the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. As such, it is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has no cause-of-action or locus-standi to file this complaint against opposite parties. She has not approached before this Commission with clean hands and has not disclosed the material facts to this Commission. The complaint is bad in nature due to non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant neither falls under the definition of 'consumer' nor lies under the definition of complainant under 'Act'. Opposite parties have no privity of contract with the complainant. As per record of opposite parties, the connection bearing No.3001157915 is in name of one Ram Singh and is not in the name of complainant. As such, the complainant has no concern with opposite parties with regard to electricity connection. She is not herself holder of the electric connection. She has not placed on record any power of attorney to file and pursue this complaint on behalf of Ram Singh. Mere assertion of complainant that she has been using the electricity connection in the name of Ram Singh, is not sufficient to authorize her to file plaint. As per rule 30 of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual (Amended till date), the heirs have to apply for the electric connection to be applied in the name of one of heirs with death certificate, succession certificate and no objection from heirs to the connection being transferred in the name of one of the heirs, but in this case, no heir has applied for the change in name of the electric connection. As such, the complaint is liable to be rejected on this ground only with special costs. The actual facts of matter are that the defective/burnt electricity meter of account bearing No.3001157915 of one Ram Singh was changed in the presence of his authorised representative in May 2019. Further preliminary objections are that on checking of the electric meter of the account bearing No.3001157915 in M.E Lab, there was difference of reading of units consumed and units of electricity last paid. This difference was of 10118 units. Thereafter opposite parties demanded an amount of Rs.88,600/- from Ram Singh vide memo No.2264 dated 21.5.2021 on the account of difference of reading. Upon non-payment of this amount, it was added in bill dated 20.4.2022. Opposite parties are fully empowered to recover the same from the connection holder legally and are also empowered to disconnect the electric connection of connection holder in case he fails to make the payment of the amount. On merits, opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above and denied all other averments of the complainant. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents, (Ex.C1 to Ex.C7). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Baljinder Singh dated 27.7.2022 (Ex.OP1/1) and other document (Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the husband of the complainant was having electricity connection in his name and he died and now, the complainant is 'consumer' of opposite parties Counsel for the complainant has further argued that the complainant had been paying the bills of electricity regularly. However, on 20.4.2022, opposite parties had illegally and unlawfully sent bill for Rs.86,000/- for consumption of 482 units in which EC and tax have been shown and thereafter they had sent the total bill of Rs.90,360/-. It is further argued that since the complainant never consumed such electricity, as such, there is deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties. To support these submissions, learned counsel for complainant has cited case law of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Kikar Singh, II (2012) CPJ 454 (NC). On the other hand, counsel for opposite parties has argued that the complainant is not 'consumer' of opposite parties as electricity connection is in the name of Ram Singh. It is further argued that the meter of consumer was burnt and was changed in the month of May 2019 and meter was checked in M.E lab and there was difference of units consumed and of units of electricity last paid. The difference was of 10118 units. However, opposite parties have demanded Rs.88,600/- from Ram Singh vide memo No.2264 dated 21.5.2021 and there is no deficiency in services. We have given careful consideration to these submissions and gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for complainant. It is admitted fact that the electricity connection is installed in the house of the complainant, which is in the name of her husband Ram Singh and at present complainant is using the said electricity connection and paying the bills, as such, this Commission is of the view that she definitely falls within the definition of 'consumer'. As far as issuance of memo No.2264 dated 21.5.2021 is concern. A perusal of file and documents show that amount in respect of checking, which took-place on 27.5.2019 regarding burnt meter and memo, (Ex.OP1/4) served on 21.5.2021 is approximately after 2 years and disputed bill has been sent to the complainant on 20.4.2022. Ex.C2 and Ex.C3, clearly show that the said bills have been sent to the complainant after more than period of 2 years and as per Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provide period of two years for recovery of amount due under the bill. Section 56(2) ibid reads as under:- “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.” Otherwise also, the due amount of Joginder Singh has become time barred. It is provided in Regulation 93.2 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, Section 56(2) of Electricity Act and Regulations, 32(2) of Supply Code 2014 effective from 1/1/2015 that due amount under electricity connection can be recovered within two years from the date when such some became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously recoverable as arrears of charges. This Commission has further found that a perusal of checking report, (Ex.OP1/2) shows that it is written that meter be got checked in the presence of consumer. However, there is no document on record to show that opposite parties have ever served any notice upon the complainant to get the meter checked in her presence. The complainant has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble National Commission New Delhi in case Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Supra) wherein it has been held as under:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b)-Electricity Connection-Theft of energy alleged-Penalty charged-Loss of business-District Forum allowed complaint-State Commission dismissed appeal-Hence revision-Petitioner did not send allegedly tampered meter to M & T Lab for checking which was a necessary requirement-No details of how penalty was assessed, were given to respondent nor was he given a notice before imposition of penalty which was clearly in violation of circulars and infructuous of petitioner itself-Tampering of meter not established-Petitioner is directed to restore electric supply-Order of penalty quashed. Result: Revision Petition dismissed.” Moreover as per instructions issued by Government of Punjab vide memo No.248/253/SV dated 3.8.2022, all the pending due bills upto 31.12.2021 have been exempted from payment and opposite parties have been directed to comply with the same In the light of above discussion, the complainant succeds to prove the deficiency in services on the part of opposite parties for having issued bills, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3) and memo, (Ex.OP1/4). As such, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed in favour of complainant and against opposite parties and memo No.2164 dated 21.5.2021, (Ex.OP1/4) is set-aside and it is held that opposite parties have no right to recover an amount of Rs.88,600/- from the complainant. No order as to cost. The compliance of this order be made by opposite parties within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced : 19-06-2023 (Lalit Mohan Dogra) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
