Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/615

Inderjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sushma Bishnoi Adv.

17 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

 

Consumer Complaint No. 615 of 12.10.2015

Date of Decision            :   17.06.2016

 

Inderjit Singh, aged about 50 years, son of Shri Gian Singh, resident of House No.749, Nanak Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.PSP Corporation Limited, Sub Division (T) UNI, Nanak Nagar, Ludhiana through its Sub Divisional Officer.

2.PSP Corporation Limited, Regd. Office: PSEB Head Office, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman.

 

…Opposite parties

 

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

 

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MS.BABITA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :        Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate proxy counsel for 

         Ms.Sushma Bishnoi, Advocate.

For OPs                          :        Sh.Ajit Singh Walia, Advocate 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant, owner in possession of property No.749, Nanak Nagar, Ludhiana, filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against Ops by claiming that he has got installed electric meter with account No.3002859174 with consumer No.W42GT4202048. Complainant is regularly paying the electricity consumption charges since installation, to OPs against the issued bills. Complainant is not in arrears of any charges , but OPs suddenly through bill No.I104715J021207028 dated 2.10.2015 raised demand of Rs.52,340/-, in which, consumption of 1480 units shown for demanding Rs.9303/-. Rs.41,044/- claimed as sundry charges in illegal way through this bill. Complainant approached OPs for clarifying as to how the demand in question worked out. Even complainant requested OPs to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.41,044/- referred above, but OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant, due to which, he has to deposit the full amount of the bill. The demand is alleged to be illegal and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for directing Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges of Rs.41,044/-. Compensation for mental pain and agony of Rs.25,000/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- more claimed.

2.                In joint written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if the complaint in the present form is not maintainable; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because he has suppressed the material facts. It is admitted that complainant in residing at property No.749 referred above and that current bill dated 2.10.2015 includes Rs.41,044/- as sundry charges.                Earlier one electric connection bearing account No.SM/22/380 under NRS category was installed in Shop No.3 in area of New Sabzi Mandi, Ludhiana in the name of complainant, but the said connection was permanently disconnected through PDCO dated 9.11.2013. A sum of Rs.41,043/- was outstanding against the said connection as per billing ledger. On 16.3.2015, Sh.Ramesh Chand, Meter Inspector visited the premises of above said shop No.3, New Sabzi Mandi, Ludhiana and submitted site report 43/81 for disclosing as if Rs.41,043/- is outstanding against the complainant in respect of use of electricity through connection bearing account No.SM22/380. Now in those premises, connections with accounts No.SM22/37 and SM22/38 are working as per checking report of Meter Inspector. The defaulting amount of Rs.41,043/- charged on proportionate basis of Rs.20,522/- on both connections. When demand of Rs.20,522/- in respect of meter bearing account No.SM22/380 was put forth, then one Jasbir Singh filed an application with AEE commercial for disclosing as if the said connection is in the name of complainant. Even he disclosed that defaulting amount of account No.SM22/380 since from PDCO pertains to shop No.3 of the complainant. Said Jasbir Singh claimed that he has no concern with the above said connection. Even he disclosed that defaulting owner of connection account No.SM22/380 is residing at House No.749, Street No.5, Nanak Nagar, Sabzi Mandi, Ludhiana. As per disclosure made by him, this owner(complainant of this case) in addition to other two addresses, out of which, one of Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar is residing there. On the basis of these disclosures, checking report dated 18.8.2015 was prepared by JE after visiting     the residence of complainant situate at Nanak Nagar, Ludhiana, which falls in the same division of City West, where electric connection with account No.GT42/0204 is lying installed in the name of the complainant. This disconnected connection bearing account No.SM22/380 earlier was installed in the name of the complainant. So in order to recover the defaulting amount of earlier connection from the complainant, being same consumer, sum of Rs.41,044/- was transferred to connection account No.GT42/0204. This amount was included in the bill dated 2.10.2015 of total amount of Rs.52,340/-. Complainant instead of depositing the amount, has filed this complaint. Admittedly, amount of sundry charges of Rs.41,044/- included in the current bill dated 2.10.2015. Complaint alleged to be filed malafide. Action of demand of Rs.41,044/- defended as legal and valid.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C15 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.Sanjeev Parbhakar, Additional S.E. City West Division along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and then closed evidence.

5.                Written arguments have not been submitted by any of the parties, but only oral arguments were addressed and heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                After going through para no.3 and 4 of the complaint and corresponding para no.3 and 4 of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant as well as after going through para no.3 of written statement under heading “on merits”, it is made out that amount of Rs.41,044/- claimed as sundry charges through bill dated 2.10.2015, which is produced on record as Ex.C1 by the complainant. Details of the amount of sundry charges not included in Ex.C1 and nor any separate notice for recovery of this amount of Rs.41,044/- shown to be issued to the complainant. However, Ex.R1 is the details produced to show as if this amount of Rs.41,043/- chargeable on account of consumption by complainant qua NRS connection bearing account No.SM22/0380-K. Copy of this details never shown to be sent to the complainant and as such, intimation of detail of claimed sundry charges amounting to Rs.41,043/- never given to the complainant. Rather, demand of sundry charges put forth through clubbed bill Ex.C1, which includes the amount of sundry charges and the amount payable by the complainant on account of actual consumption of 1480 units with respect to the electric meter bearing account No.GT42/0204. This connection account number is picked up from the contents of written statement of OPs. So, it is obvious that amount of Rs.41,043/- claimed by Ops as consumption charges against NRS category connection bearing account No.SM22/0380,but clubbed in the bill Ex.C1, which pertains to domestic connection    of complainant in another premises.

7.                Account No.SM22/0380 was already closed due to permanent disconnection is a fact borne from the contents of Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 each. Amount of Rs.41,043/- sought to be charged with respect to the connections bearing accounts No.SM22/37 and SM22/380. Earlier OPs sought to recover       Rs.20,522/- out of the demanded sundry charges amount of Rs41,044/- through Ex.R3 from one Jasbir Singh, but he filed an application Ex.R4 with OPs for claiming that electric connection with account No.SM/22/0380-K was owned by the complainant Sh.Inderjit Singh. Name and address of complainant specifically was given by the said Jasbir Singh through Ex.R4. After issue of letter Ex.R4, report Ex.R5 was obtained by the OPs on 18.8.2015. On the basis of this report, total amount of sundry charges in question sought to be recovered from the account of the complainant bearing account No.GT42/0204. Even if OP may have the right to recover the amount of sundry charges in question from the complainant due to consumption of electricity against electric connection with account No.SM22/0380 and SM22/37, but despite that principles of natural justice requires that due opportunity of hearing must have been afforded to the complainant for explaining his position. Rule “Audi Alteram Partem” requires that no one should be condemned unheard.  However, the sundry charges of amount of Rs.41,044/- claimed from the complainant through composite bill Ex.C1 and as such violation of principles of natural justice committed by OPs.

8.                Latest Regulations 30.1.2 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007(effective from 1.1.2015)(as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Reg 97 dated November 5,2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette(Extra) dated November 5,2014) reads as under:-

“30.1.2:-The 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. The arrear bill cum notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrears along with calculation details of such arrears. If the arrears are not cleared by the consumer, such arrears shall 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 non-payment of such arrear amount along with the current energy bill.”

9.                Perusal of this Regulation 30.1.2 also reveals that charges levied as arrears for correcting the mistake not to be clubbed with the current electricity bill. Rather, arrear bill-cum-notice to be separately issued giving brief details of the nature and period of the arrears along with calculation details of such arrears. Such bill-cum-notice not claimed or shown to be sent by the Ops to the complainant before putting forth the demand in question and as such, there is violation of this latest regulation 30.1.2 also.

10.              Regulation 124.1 contained in Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007(effective from 1.1.2015)(as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Reg 97 dated November 5,2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette(Extra) dated November 5,2014) provides that when an amount to be charged from the consumer as arrears on account of under assessment or for correction of the records or for rectification of mistake, then separate bill should be issued by giving complete details of the levied charges. This regulation 124.1 specifically prohibits the charges being clubbed in the current bill of the consumer. However, impugned amount has been clubbed in the current electricity bill and as such, violation of this regulation 124.1 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007 is also committed by the OPs. Law prohibits unjust enrichment and as such, if  the complainant has consumed the electricity against connection bearing account No.SM22/380( with respect to which PDCO had already been done) or with  respect to the connection bearing account No.SM22/37, then he must pay for the same. However, the demand of sundry charges clubbed through bill Ex.C1 is illegal being violative of principles of natural justice and rules and regulations of PSPCL itself and as such, while quashing the said demand, ends of justice warrant that opportunity should be given to OPs to recover the amount by following the principles of natural justice and above referred rules and regulations. However, due to raising of the demand in illegal way, complainant has suffered mental harassment and as such, he is entitled to compensation for mental harassment along with litigation expenses, which should be minimum because of the conduct of complainant in not paying the due amount with respect to the disconnected connection referred above.

11.              Consumer Fora has fullest jurisdiction to settle the dispute relating to excessive billing, in case, the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice, as per law laid down in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and another vs. M.D.Imtiyaz-IV (2014)CPJ-25(Maghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). So, jurisdiction of this Fora is not barred, particularly when the demand has been raised in violation of principles of natural justice and rules and regulations of the Ops itself because separate bill has not been issued and nor show cause notice shown to be issued for calling upon the complainant to explain as to why the impugned amount be not recovered from him.

12.              Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that demand of sundry charges of Rs.41,044/- quashed with observations that OPs may recover this amount by following the principles of natural justice and as per rules and regulations of PSPCL as referred in the detailed order. Even Ops will pay compensation for mental harassment of Rs.2000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. These compensation and litigations amounts will be paid by the OPs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

13.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Babita)                                     (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                      President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:17.06.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.