BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 115 of 15.02.2016. Date of Decision: 29.08.2016.
Hardeep Kaur aged about 55 years w/o. Sh. Gurdeep Singh, 258-A, Ambedkar Nagar, Ludhiana.
..… Complainant
Versus
- Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Managing Director.
- Assistant Executive Engineer (Commercial), Unit-I, Office of A.S.E. Model Town Division (Spl.), Model Town Extension, P.S.P.C. Ltd., Model Town, Ludhiana.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
SH. KARNAIL SINGH, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Kanwarjit Singh, Advocate.
For Ops : Sh. Yashbir Choudhary, Advocate.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant, owner of property No.258-A, Ambedkar Nagar, Ludhiana, filed complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) by claiming that she got installed an NRS connection with account No.W32MG500018 K. That connection got installed for earning livelihood in course of self employment. Complainant had been making payment of electricity consumption bills regularly. In past, complainant let out shop out of this property to one Sh. Hari Lal, resident of same locality bearing No.314-A, Ambedkar Nagar, Ludhiana in same property. Later on said Hari Lal vacated the shop without intimation to complainant and even without making payment of due rent. Ops raised demand of amount with respect to another electricity connection account of Sh. Hari Lal and then a dispute arose between complainant and Ops. That culminated in accumulation of arrears in account of complainant. Complainant called upon Ops to charge due amount because she has no relation with residential electricity connection account of Hari Lal. Those residential premises of Sh. Hari Lal has never been used by complainant. Though initially Ops assured to withdraw the demand pertaining to account of Sh. Hari Lal, but that assurance not kept. In view of the said assurance of setting right account of complainant, complainant deposited Rs.23,000/- on 04.12.2015 and another Rs.23,000/- on 11.01.2016. As Ops have not withdrawn the said demand pertaining to account of Hari Lal and as such, this complaint by pleading deficiency in service on part of Ops. It is claimed that demand of Rs.56,394/- as SOP + Rs.5118/- as ED + Rs.586/- as Octroi charges + Rs.240/- as misc. charges i.e. of total Rs.62,338/- has been put forth through electricity consumption bill issued on 30.12.2015, in above referred account of complainant. Ops have not deliberately rendered the accounts of complainant. Demand raised is violative of the instructions of Ops. Prayer made for calling upon Ops to explain above referred demand of Rs.62,338/- and even prayer made for quashing this illegal and arbitrary demand. Compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and sufferings and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- claimed.
2. In joint written statement filed by Ops, it is pleaded, interalia, as if complaint is not maintainable in the present form; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint; complainant owing to suppression of material facts has not approached this Forum with clean hands; complainant has no locus standi and that the complaint has been filed for abusing process of law. Previously electricity connection No.MT 50 1310L was installed with the electric connection account no.50/0018 K in premises of complainant. During checking on 30.12.2013, it was found that electric connection No. MT50/1310L P A N has already been permanently disconnected and defaulting amount of Rs.51,050/- is standing because of non-payment of the same by Sh. Hari Lal. AE/Tech-I, MT-II during checking found that electric connection of the consumer has permanently been disconnected and the meter has been removed because of default committed in payment of electricity charges with respect to account no.MG-50/0018K by complainant. That connection was in name of present complainant Hardeep Kaur and as such, amount in dispute alleged to be rightly charged from account No.W32MG500018K as per LCR No.616-023 dated 30.12.2013. It is claimed that Ops are within their right to recover this amount. It is not disputed that complainant had been making payment of electricity bills to Ops on relevant times qua her electric connection account No.W32 MG500018K. In past, complainant let out her shop out of this property to Sh. Hari Lal, resident of same locality bearing No.314-A, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Ludhiana for some period. Admittedly, Hari Lal left out the premises without payment of rent and that is why his connection was permanently disconnected. Complainant was asked to pay Rs.62,338/- through bill dated 30.12.2015. The electric connection in the name of Hari Lal was installed in the premises of complainant and complainant herself admitted that above said amount was due against the electricity account in name of Hari Lal. As Hari Lal left the premises without making payment and as such, complainant liable to pay the said amount, owing to letting of the premises to Hari Lal. Complainant has connection in the premises under tenancy of Hari Lal and as such, she cannot escape from the liability. Each and every other averment of complaint denied being incorrect. Further it is denied that complainant has no relation with electric connection account No.MG50/1310 L. It is denied that complainant has not used this connection.
3. Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence, her affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 and thereafter counsel for complainant closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP1 and OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Daljit Singh, Senior Executive Engineer along with Ex. R1 and closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments heard. Record gone through carefully.
5. The impugned bill Ex. C2 is produced on record to establish that in addition to the current electricity charges, the earlier arrears even claimed. On the back of this bill Ex. C2, it is mentioned that the amount mentioned in the bill be deemed as a notice of payment in view of Regulation 39 of Electricity Supply Code & Related Matter Regulation 2007. So it is vehemently contended by counsel for Ops that due notice has been issued to complainant. That submission of counsel for Ops certainly has no force in view of regulation 30.1.2 of the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007 of PSPCL as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Reg 97 dated 05.11.2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette (Extra) dated 05.11.2014.
6. After going through regulation 30.1.2 of Supply Code (ibid), it is made out that bill cum notice for arrears in the 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. Further as per this regulation, the arrear bill cum notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrears along with calculation details of such arrears. That notice will further indicate that if the arrears not cleared by the consumer, then those arrears will be indicated regularly in the subsequent electricity bills. However, in case arrear bill is included in the current energy bill at the first instance, the distribution licensee shall not be entitled to take any punitive action against the consumer for nonpayment of such arrear amount along with the current energy bill. After going through impugned bill Ex. C2 along with pleading of the parties and contents of Ex. RA of Sh. Daljit Singh, Senior Executive Engineer, it is made out that arrears with respect to the electricity connection availed by Sh. Hari Lal (ex tenant of complainant) has been included in this bill Ex. C2 itself. It is not the case of Ops that separate bill cum notice was issued to complainant for affecting recovery of amount of Rs.51,050/- standing due in account of Sh. Hari Lal. In view of non-issuance of said notice and in view of clubbing of those arrears in bill Ex. C2 itself, it is obvious that demand of Rs.51,050/- pertaining to account of Sh. Hari Lal has been put forth in violation of regulation of 30.1.2 of Supply Code discussed in detail above.
7. Besides as per instruction 93.1 contained in Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, First Addition up dated till 31.03.2011 by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, Patiala, in case a bill is to be raised on account of defect in the metering equipment or unauthorized use of electricity etc. then separate bills has to be issued containing complete details of the charges. Copy of the relevant instructions under which the charges have been levied, has also to be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of cases by Consumer Forums. No such separate bill shown to be sent to complainant and nor copy of the relevant instructions under which charges to be levied, shown to be sent to complainant. Even notice indicating nature and period of arrears along with calculation detail of arrears not shown to be sent to complainant by Ops and as such, in addition to violation of regulation 30.1.2 (supra), there is violation of instructions 93.1 (ibid) also. In view of that illegality committed by Ops, qua demand of amount of Rs.51,050/-. The demand being illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice, liable to be quashed.
8. Consumer Fora has fullest jurisdiction to settle the disputes relating to excessive billing in case bill put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principle of natural justice, as per law laid down in case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and another Vs M.D. Imtiyaz- IV (2014) CPJ 25 (Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). Even Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case of Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Daljit Singh 2007(2) CLT 163 has held that if the report of ME Lab is to be relied upon for raising the demand, then rules of natural justice requires that a consumer must be given opportunity to oversee as to what is being done in the ME Lab regarding the removed meter. That opportunity not provided to complainant by sending her separate bill indicating the nature and period of arrears along with calculations of detail and as such, in view of violation of principles of natural justice, demand with respect to Rs.51,050/- cannot be sustained.
9. As per law laid in Case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others Vs Anis Ahmad bearing Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (C) No.35906 of 2011, decided on 01.07.2013 by Hon’ble Apex Court of the Country, when there is no inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of latter will prevail, albeit the same ipso facto will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters, which do not come within the meaning of “Service” as defined in Section 2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act. A complaint against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003, is not maintainable before a Consumer Fora. As per further ratio of this case, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to grant relief is limited to the dispute relating to “Unfair Trade Practice”; or a “Restrictive Trade Practice adopted by the Service provider”; or “if the consumer suffer from deficiency in service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law”. By keeping in view, the propositions of law laid in the above cited case, it has to be held that jurisdiction of this Forum is not barred in cases of the kind decided by this Judgment because the demand put forth by OPs virtually falls within domain of sufferance of consumer due to deficiency in service and even because of the charging of the demanded amount in violation of principles of natural justice and the rules and regulations framed by OPs.
10. It is the case of Ops themselves that defaulting amount of Rs.51,050/- is standing still because Sh. Hari Lal has not paid the same and as such, in view of contents of written statement, it is obvious that the above referred amount of Rs.51,050/- sought to be recovered from complainant with respect to a tenant in the premises qua electricity account No.MG-50/0018K, which is different than that of the consumer connection account no.W32MG500018K of complainant. This recovery is to the extent of Rs.56,394/- in fact as demanded by bill dated 30.12.2015 placed on record as Ex. C1. For recovery of this arrears of Rs.56,394/- separate bill cum notice not sent and as such bill liable to be not sent with respect to Rs.56,394/-. The clubbing of this amount of Rs.56,394/- in the current bill Ex. C1 has taken place. If complainant has paid Rs.46,000/- out of this amount through receipt Ex. C3 and Ex. C4, then said payment made just for escaping disconnection of electricity connection in question. That amount liable to be adjusted. Demand of Rs.51,050/- put forth through register entry of Ops, copy of which is produced on record as Ex. C5. After going through item No.12 of this Ex. C5, it is made out that this demand put forth pertaining to permanently disconnected electricity connection bearing No.MG-50/1310L with LCR No.023/616 dated 30.12.2013 through electricity account No.MT-50/0018, which is in operation with account No.MG50/1310L. As these bills in written statement claimed to be pertaining to Hari Lal and as such, recovery sought to be affected from complainant with respect to the electricity consumed by Hari Lal.
11. If complainant has not been provided information under RTI despite filing application Ex. C6, then nothing can be commented in that respect in the proceedings of this case because RTI is a complete code under which separate remedy is available to complainant.
12. Ex. R1 in fact is same thing as is Ex. C5. After going through Ex. R1, it is made out that defaulter Hari Lal has account no.1310-L of which PDCO has already been done. So in view of contents of Ex. R1, it is obvious that defaulter with respect to amount of Rs.51,050/- is Hari Lal and not present complainant. Affidavits Ex. CB and EX. CC Baldev Singh and Ram Singh produced to show that house No.314-A is at distance of 1.5/2 furlong from the shop/plot No.258-A, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Ludhiana. No evidence in rebuttal to these affidavits adduced by Ops and as such, contents of these affidavit has to be taken on its face value for finding that residential House No.314-A of Hari Lal is at distance of 1.5/2 furlong from Plot No.258-A. So virtually complainant has not been provided opportunity by Ops to adduce evidence to show that demand is raised with respect to residential accommodation of Hari Lal and not with respect to the shop let out to Hari Lal by complainant.
13. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint merits acceptance and same is hereby allowed in terms that demand of Rs.56,394/- put forth through bill Ex. C1 as arrears is quashed, but to see that genuine grievance of Ops does not go un redressed, it is ordered that Ops will have right to affect recovery of this amount from complainant after providing them due opportunity of hearing, as per rules and regulations of Ops referred above and by following principles of natural justice. If that process to be carried out by Ops, then same must be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Complainant was mentally harassed and as such, an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) allowed as compensation for mental harassment and sufferings and even litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against Ops. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of the order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Karnail Singh) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:29.08.2016.
Gobind Ram.
