Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/12

Gurpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Saurabh K.

03 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:12 dated 07.02.2021.                                                 Date of decision: 03.02.2023.

 

Gurpreet Kaur aged 52 years wife of Shri G.S. Walia, resident of 641, Phase-II, Urban Estate Dugri, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                            .…Complainant

                                                Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Model Town, Ludhiana through its XEN/SDO//Assistant Executive.       

…..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 12 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. Saurabh K. Maheshwary, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Jaspreet Singh Dua, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Succinctly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of domestic electricity connection bearing consumer No.w31 SNA lying installed at her house No.641, Phase-II, Urban Estate Dugri, Ludhiana and she used to pay the electricity bills regularly. She has never committed any default and there is no outstanding arrears against the said electricity connection. The complainant stated that the opposite party has sent a bill  dated 17.07.2020 claiming an amount of Rs.8285.16 as previous arrears and Rs.1934/- as sundry charges total amounting to Rs.10,000/-. However, no such previous arrears are outstanding against the said meter as she has been regularly paying all the bills and no arrears have been shown in the previous bills. The complainant approached the office of opposite party at Model Town on 23.07.2020 to solve the dispute but no satisfactory answer was given either verbally or in writing to her. The complainant got served a legal notice upon opposite party on 27.07.2020 through her counsel to withdraw the demand or to refer the matter to dispute settlement committee for making enquiry into the matter but no reply was received from the opposite party. Rather opposite party threatened to disconnect the electricity supply to the premises of the complainant and the said act and conduct amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party for which the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/-. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to opposite party to withdraw the illegal demand claimed vide bill dated 17.07.2020 and further to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental tension, pain and agony besides Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.                          Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the compliant is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on their part. The opposite party alleged that the complainant is having three phase electric connection with sanctioned load of 7.90 KW. At the time of receiving meter reading, on 14.01.2019. It was reported by the Meter Reader that the meter was defected.  Job order No.100007400081 dated 15.01.2019 was issued for replacement of the meter and the meter was also got checked vide LCR No.18 dated 27.02.2019 vide which it was reported that the meter was burnt. The meter of the complainant was replaced on 02.03.2019. The meter got checked through the ME lab vide ME challan no.250 of 19.03.2019 where the meter was also reported as ‘Burnt” and it was advised ‘to do the needful after watching the previous consumption of the consumer as per rules and regulations of PSPCL.” The opposite party further alleged that the internal audit department while auditing the account of the PSPCL, Model Town Division, Ludhiana checked this consumer account and found that there was deep fall in consumption to the comparison of the same period of last year. Therefore, the audit vide its Half Margin No.51 dated 29.10.2019 rightly overhauled the account of the complainant for the period 15.09.2018 to 15.11.2018 on the basis of previous consumption of the consumer for the period i.e. 15.09.2017 to 15.11.2017 and make addition of Rs.10,291/- as short assessment as per rules and regulation of PSPCL.

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections.  The opposite party has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered her affidavit Ex. CA in which she reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the legal notice dated 27.07.2020, Ex. C2 is the  copy of postal receipt, Ex. C3 is the copy of bill dated 21.07.2018, Ex. C4 is the copy of another bill, Ex. C5 is the copy of bill dated 18.09.2018, Ex. C6 is the copy of bill dated 15.11.2018, Ex. C7 is the copy of bill dated 16.03.2019, Ex. C8 is the copy of bill dated 15.05.2019, Ex. C9 is the copy of bill dated 17.07.2019, Ex. C10 is the copy of bill dated 14.09.2019, Ex. C11 is the copy of ill dated 1.11.2019, Ex. C12 is the copy of bill dated 16.01.2020Ex. C13 is the copy of bill dated 19.03.2020, Ex. C14 is the copy of bill dated 15.05.2020, Ex. C15 is the copy of disputed bill dated 17.07.2020 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. DA of Er. M.P. Singh, Additional Superintendent Engineer, Model Town Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana  along with documents Ex. D1 is the copy of  copy of consumer checking register dated 27.02.2019, Ex. D2 is the copy of consent letter signed by the complainant, Ex. D3 is the copy of challan No.250 dated 19.03.2019, Ex. D4 is the copy of job order for device replacement dated 15.01.2019, Ex. D5 is the copy of audit report dated 29.10.2019, Ex. D6 is the copy of consumption chart of the complainant 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.                By invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission, the complainant has alleged that the demand made by the opposite party is illegal as she had been regularly paying all the previous bills. The complainant has failed to pin point how the demand made by the opposite party is illegal and what are the provisions/rules and regulations which have not been complied with by the opposite party before issuing the bill of additional demand of Rs.8285.16. The complainant has failed to discharge the intial onus of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 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.”

7.                          On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party has contended that due process was followed before making addition of Rs.10,291/- as short assessment as per rules and regulations of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. He has drawn the attention of this Commission towards rule 21.5.2 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual of PSPCL, which is reproduced as under:-

          21.5.2         Defective (other than inaccurate)/Dead Stop/Burnt/Stolen                            Meters.

The accounts of a consumer shall be overhauled/billed for the period meter remained defective/dead stop and in case of burnt/stolen meter for the period of direct supply subject to maximum period of six months as per procedure given below:

a) On the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year.

b) In case the consumption of corresponding period of the previous year as referred in para (a) above is not available, the average monthly consumption of previous six (6) months during which the meter as functional, shall be adopted for overhauling of accounts.

c) If neither the consumption of corresponding period of previous year (para-a) nor for the last six months (para-b) is available then average of the consumption for the period the meter worked correctly during the last 6 months shall be taken for overhauling the account of the consumer.

d) Where the consumption for the previous months/period as referred in para (a) to para (c) is not available, the consumer shall be tentatively billed on the basis of consumption assessed as per para -4 of Annexure-8 and subsequently adjusted on the basis of actual consumption recorded in the corresponding period of the succeeding year.

e) The energy consumption determined as per para (a) to (d) above shall be adjusted for the change of load/demand, if any, during the period of overhauling of accounts.

Further it is also evident from Ex. D5 and Ex. D6 that the calculation was made in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid law. As such, the additional demand of Rs.10,291/-  is legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

8.                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.

9.                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.

10.              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:03.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Gurpreet Kaur Vs Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd.           CC/21/12

Present:       Sh. Saurabh K. Maheshwary, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Jaspreet Singh Dua, Advocate for OP.

 

                   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:03.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.