Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/255

Jarnail Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S.S.Heer Adv.

26 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

 

Consumer Complaint No. 255 of 17.04.2015

Date of Decision            :   26.05.2016

 

Jarnail Kaur w/o late Sh.Malkit Singh, Near Govt.School, Giaspura, 33 Foota Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

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

2.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Estate Division Special, Giaspura, Ludhiana, through its Assistant Executive Engineer.

 

…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.S.S.Heer, Advocate.

For OPs                          :        Sh.A.S.Pahwa, Advocate 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant Jarnail Kaur, wife of late Sh.Malkit Singh, filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against Ops by claiming that an electric connection No.PW21/592 in domestic category with sanctioned load of 8.71 Kw was installed by OP2 in the name of her husband. Complainant is the actual user of this electric connection and as such, she claimed herself to be a consumer. Op2 raised bill for the month of September 2014 by showing consumption of electricity as 5500 units. After receipt of said bill, accuracy of the meter was challenged by depositing fee of Rs.120/- vide receipt No.200, Book No.944 dated 20.09.2014. That meter was checked in ME Lab vide Challan No.CH-111008/32237 dated 12.10.2014. The old meter was changed through MCO No.14/217863 dated 27.10.2014. Complainant deposited the cost of new meter vide receipt No.99, Book No.7963 dated 27.10.2014. New meter No.4645642 was installed in the premises of the complainant. Complainant again challenged the same and testing of the said meter was done through ME Lab on 19.11.2014. Complainant was not satisfied with the report of ME Lab because received bills were on higher side and as such, she wrote letter to OP2 with the request to challenge the bills before the Dispute Settlement Committee. The requisite fee was deposited and thereafter, OP2 forwarded the complaint to Additional S.E. for necessary permission, who granted the same vide Endorsement No.3846 dated 26.11.2014. Requisite amount of Rs.11,700/- was deposited vide receipt No.275, Book No.7936 dated 26.11.2014 by the complainant on the direction of OP2. During the period, OP2 raised a bill dated 8.11.2014 for an amount of Rs.58,500/-, in which, Rs.44,692/- has been shown as arrear. After receipt of this bill, complainant again visited office of OP2 and thereafter, the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was checked vide LCR No.11/633 dated 4.12.2014. Connected load was found as 4.393 KW. Complainant again received bill dated 6.1.2015, which was corrected to Rs.4610/- on 19.1.2015, due to pendency of the matter before the Dispute Settlement Committee. On the spot, connected load was 4.393 Kw and consumption was of 369 units. This reading is from the installation of meter dated 28.10.2014. So, total consumption from 28.10.2014 to 4.12.2014 is 368 units only. Consumption shown in the month of August 2014 and September 2014 as such alleged to be not correct and the same was confirmed by the Dispute Settlement Committee, who directed OP2 to reconcile the consumption of the consumer for the same month of the previous year. Complainant received memo No.SCA-2/128 R-141 without date from OP2, vide which, demand of Rs.40,366/- as per decision of Dispute Settlement Committee dated 23.01.2015 was put forth. Details mentioned in that memo are as if the total amount of the case is Rs.58,500/- and amount recoverable as per decision is Rs.40,366/- and Rs.11,700/- already deposited. Interest of Rs.1864/- even alleged to be due and as such, balance payable was worked out at Rs.30,530/- after adjusting the already paid amount of Rs.11,700/-. Complainant was called upon to comply with the terms of notice by making payment within 15 days and thereafter, OP2 was called upon to reinvestigate the demand because demand of Rs.46,800/- alleged to be not correct. After that complainant received a bill dated 12.3.2015 for amount of Rs.36,480/- which was raised in compliance with the order of Dispute Settlement Committee. That bill alleged to be totally illegal, void and malafide. It is claimed that complainant is not in arrears and matter has not been finally decided and as such, amount shown as recoverable is actually not recoverable. No notice was served upon the complainant regarding raising of huge demand of arrears and nor the complainant was made aware about the shown arrears in the bills referred above. Violation of principles of natural justice and rules and regulations of Electricity Act pleaded by claiming deficiency in service  on the part of OPs. It is claimed that in case, consumer not satisfied with the decision of Dispute Settlement Committee, then he has a right to avail the remedy under section 42(5) and 42(6) of the Electricity Act. Prayer made for directing OPs to withdraw the notice issued for amount of Rs.40,366/- and bill dated 12.3.2015 for amount of Rs.36,480/- by taking the actual consumption shown in the current bills. Directions sought to OPs to refund the amount deposited before challenging the demand before Dispute Settlement Committee. Compensation on account of physical and mental harassment of Rs.30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/- more claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OPs, it is claimed that the complaint is not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. Further, it is claimed that complainant has already availed the lawful remedy by making reference of the dispute to the Dispute Settlement Committee, who has decided the matter and as such, complaint before this Forum is not maintainable, because this Forum has not the appellate authority qua the decision given by the Dispute Settlement Committee. The Ombudsman at Chandigarh can decide the matters under Section 42(5) and 42(6) of the Electricity Act, due to which, this Forum has no jurisdiction. Sanctioned load on the meter in question is 8.71 Kw. Bill for the month of September 2014 was sent for 5500 units and the same was challenged by the complainant by depositing fee and thereafter, meter was removed and the same tested in ME Lab. Results were found within limits. Complainant submitted request with Additional S.E., Estate Division for reference of the matter to the Dispute Settlement Committee and after allowing her request, the matter was referred on depositing 20% of amount i.e.Rs.11,700/- vide receipt dated 26.11.2014. Thereafter, Dispute Settlement Committee decided the matter after giving full opportunity of hearing to the complainant. As per decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee, amount of Rs.30,530/- was charged after deducting the already deposited amount of Rs.11,700/-. It is claimed that the complainant has not disclosed the name of legal heirs of Malkeet Singh, in whose name the electricity connection in question still exist. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and OPs and as such, complaint merits dismissal. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C16 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Er.Gurpreet Singh, Additional S.E.Estate Division(Special) of OPs along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 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.                From perusal of pleadings of the parties as well as affidavits Ex.CA, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.C7 and Ex.C8, it is made out that on request of the complainant, matter was referred to Dispute Settlement Committee regarding the claim of the OPs for charging for 5500 units for the month of September 2014. Dispute Settlement Committee vide order Ex.C13 found that record of consumption of 5500 units for the month of August 2014 does not seem to be correct and as such, account of the complainant be corrected by keeping in view the reading of the same month for the previous year by keeping in view the fact that consumption was of 3495 units.

7.                It is vehemently contended by the counsel for OPs that in compliance of the directions issued through Ex.C13, the correction was done and that is why, memo Ex.C14=Ex.R3 was issued. This Ex.C14=Ex.R3 specifies the total amount of the case as Rs.58,500/-, which in fact is the amount of bill Ex.C10 showing reading for the period from 15.9.2014 to 8.11.2014. Amount of Rs.11,700/- already got deposited by the complainant in pursuance of the directions issued by the Dispute Settlement Committee has been shown to be adjusted in Ex.R3=Ex.C14 by finding that amount recoverable as per the decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee is Rs.40,366/- after adjusting Rs.11,700/-. Total amount now payable worked out at Rs.30,530/- through Ex.R3=Ex.C14. In this way, amount                 of Rs.40,366/- worked out as amount recoverable as per decision of Dispute Settlement Committee through Ex.C14. Nothing is mentioned in Ex.C14=Ex.R3 as to how calculations worked out. In view of this, submissions of counsel for the complainant has force that demand of Rs.40,366/- put forth through Ex.C14=Ex.R3 without affording due opportunity of hearing to the complainant. Even if relief by Dispute Settlement Committee through order Ex.C13 may have been given to the complainant, but despite that it is for the OPs to prove that amount referred above worked out as per decision of Dispute Settlement Committee by affording due opportunity of hearing to the complainant.

8.                As and when, the bill cum notice for arrears in the case of under assessment or the charges levied as result of checking etc, sought to be initially issued or levied, then the same shall be tendered separately and will not be clubbed with the current electricity bill as per Regulation 30.1.2 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007. The arrear bill cum notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrears along with calculation details of such arrears. This alsois requirement of Regulation 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). The detail of these demanded arrears of Rs.40,366/- not shown to be worked out and nor the details thereof shown     to be sent to the complainant and as such, there is violation of Regulations 30.1.2 of above referred regulations. If through Ex.C11, occupied load worked out, then from it alone it cannot be worked out as to how the assessment of the amount of Rs.40,366/- done. A chart indicating the nature and period of arrears along with calculation details of the arrears must have been prepared for giving notice to the complainant as to how demand of Rs.40,366/- worked out. That has not been done by the OPs and as such, the demand raised in this respect is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.

9.                Even in bill Ex.C16, it is mentioned that decision of Dispute Settlement Committee enforced and that is why, demand of Rs.36,480/- put forth by showing the recoverable arrears as Rs.24,160/-. However, the details of arrears worked out not given and even no separate notice has been issued to the complainant and as such, virtually the demand of Rs.36,480/- put forth through Ex.C16 without issuing the separate bill or notice. Rather, the amount chargeable as per decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee clubbed in the current bill of electricity placed on record as Ex.C16, which is not permissible as per the regulation 30.1.2 of above referred regulations.

10.       It is contended by Sh.A.S.Pahwa, Advocate that sanctioned load is 8.71 KW and by keeping in view of hours of day as 24 and months of day as 30, consumption per month worked out as 6271 units. That detail worked out by the counsel for the OPs is not appropriate because after going through page 122 pertaining to the assessment of electricity charges in case of unauthorized use/theft mentioned under Regulations 36 and 37 of the above said Regulations, it is      made out that the units to be assessed like L x D x H x F by keeping in view the fact    that L is the load found connected during the course of inspection in KW; D is number of working days per month, during which unauthorized use/theft is suspected. F is the demand factor, which in case of domestic category of connection to be taken  below 30% as per formula worked out at page 123 of the above said regulation. Further, H as per this assessment is the use of supply hours per day, which in the case of domestic category of use to be taken as 08 hours as per page no.123 of above said regulations. However, hours taken by the counsel for the OPs for 24 for the domestic electricity connection and as such, worked out  consumption of 6271 units per months is not in accordance with the rules and regulations.

11.              After going through Regulations 36.1.6 to 36.1.8 of the above said regulations, it is made out that the Assessing Officer shall provisionally assess the electricity charges payable by the person for unauthorized use of electricity as per procedure specified in annexure 8 of these regulations and that provisional assessment order to be issued within 72 hours of inspection and thereafter, served upon the consumer/person in occupation or possession or incharge of the place. After service of this provisional assessment order, the consumer/person served to deposit the assessed amount with the distribution licensee, but despite that the said provisional assessment order liable to the challenged as per Regulation 36.1.9 of the above said Regulations. That provisional order of assessment not shown to be served upon the complainant and as such,she was deprived of the opportunity of challenging the provisional order of assessment. Right to appeal against final assessment order even was available to the complainant as per regulations 36.3.1 to 36.3.6 of above said regulations. That due opportunity not afforded to the complainant, but recoverable amount clubbed in the current electricity bill and as such, illegality committed in that respect by the Ops.

12.              Perusal of Ex.C6 undoubtedly reveals that at the time of testing the meter in ME Lab, the complainant was present and as such, due opportunity in that respect was provided to the complainant.

13.              As per law laid down in case Jagrut Nagrik and another vs. Dy.Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board-2006(3)CPJ-374(N.C.), the Consumer Fora  cannot sit in appeal over the decision of appellate committee constituted departmentally as per Regulations of the Electricity Supply Code. Ratio of that case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and as such, decision of the Dispute Settlement Committee cannot be made  the subject of this consumer complaint. Even if decision of Dispute Settlement Committee is binding, being not challenged by the complainant, despite that violation of rules and regulations committed by not affording due opportunity of hearing while assessing the amount in question and as such, complaint deserves to be allowed in terms that demand raised of Rs.40,366/- through Ex.C14 and of Rs.36,480/- through bill Ex.C16 are illegal and liable to be quashed. However, OPs cannot be deprived of their right to recalculation as per the principles of natural justice and rules and regulations because decision of Dispute Settlement Committee Ex.C13 has attained finality. In view of improper implementation of order Ex.C13, complainant has suffered and as such, she is entitled for compensation for mental harassment and agony and even to litigation expenses.

14.              Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that demands put forth through Ex.C14 and Ex.C16 of Rs.40,366/- and 36,480/- respectively are hereby quashed. However,  Ops   given  liberty  to recover the due amount as per decision Ex.C13 of Dispute Settlement Committee after affording  due opportunity of hearing to the complainant in accordance with the principles of natural justice and rules and regulations referred above. In case, this exercise to be carried by the Ops, then it must be initiated within 30 days   from the date of receipt of copy of order and completed thereafter, within 60 days from the appearance of the complainant before the Assessing Officer. Amount already paid/deposited by the complainant will be adjusted in the amount finally adjudged by the Assessing Officer as per rules and regulations as referred above. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.3000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OPs. Liability of OPs to pay the awarded amount of compensation and litigation expenses held as joint and several. Payment of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the OPs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

15.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Babita)                                     (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                      President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:26.05.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.