Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/295

Kamalpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ashok Kumar Adv

08 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:295 dated 07.06.2021.                                                         Date of decision: 08.11.2023.

 

Kamalpreet Singh Hara 31 years s/o Late S.Avtar Singh Hara s/o Late Amrik Singh, r/o Ward No.11, Vill.Nandpur Sahnewal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana.                                                                               .…Complainant

                                                Versus

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, The Mall, Patiala, through its M.D.

2.Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Assistant Engineers Sub Division Sahnewal, Ludhiana , through its authorized officer.                                                                                                             …..Opposite parties

     Complaint Under Section 37 of the Consumer Protection Act,2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Ms. Shalini Joshi, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Varinder Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the father of the complainant had got installed the domestic electricity connection bearing account No.3001910980 in the house of the complainant. The father of the complainant has since been died on 07.01.2013 leaving behind the only male legal heir and the house where the meter  is installed, which is under the ownership of the complainant. The complainant had been using the electricity in the house from the said connection and making the payments of electricity bills so issued against the consumption of electricity used by the complainant. All of sudden, the complainant received a letter bearing No.1961 dated 09.04.2021 in the shape of supplementary bill for meter bearing account No.3001910980/W13SF05 for demanding an amount of Rs.73,345/- with the reason that the complainant was using electricity in the adjoining shop through this electric connection and it falls in the commercial category. It is averred that other meter bearing account No.3001909971 installed for the electricity use to the alleged shops which is in the name of grandmother namely Amar Kaur of the complainant. It is claimed that the OPs are acting illegally and against their guidelines and circulars so issued from time to time. No inspection was conducted on the spot by the OPs nor has the proper procedure of making inspection as per their own guidelines been followed. The grandmother of the complainant had also moved an application to the OPs that meter in question was neither used for commercial connection  and also requested to withdraw the alleged demand raised vide letter bearing No.1961 dated 09.04.2021 for meter bearing account No.3001910980/W13SF05 for an amount of Rs.73,345/- but the OPs have failed to reply to the said application. Despite repeated approach by the complainant and his family members with the request to check their record, no needful has been done by the OPs. Rather, the officials of OPs threatened the complainant to deposit the fine amount, failing which they would disconnect the electric connection of the complainant. The said act and conduct of the opposite parties is claimed to be deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the complainant has prayed for cancel the bill/notice bearing memo No.1961 dated 09.04.2021 vide which, the amount of Rs.73,345/- has been imposed as supplementary bill and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with costs of the complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OP1 and OP2 appeared and filed their joint written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on their part. In this case, the amount of Rs.73,345/- was charged vide supplementary bill memo No.1961 dated 09.04.2021 for the reason that the refund was given inadvertently due to wrong rate category of board employee and as per report of the audit party vide half margin No.108 dated 24.02.2021, the said amount was charged and the consumer was asked to pay Rs.73,345/- within 15 days of the receipt of the said supplementary bill. In this case, the wrong refund was given and the said amount was charged when this fact came to their notice. The entire amount relates to the consumption charges of the electricity consumed by the complainant. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant himself admits that he is using the electricity from the electric connection bearing account No.3001910980 in which wrong refund under wrong rate category of board official was given and the complainant is liable to refund the said amount. The complainant himself admits that he is a doctor by profession and not the board official as such he was not entitled to the said refund which was inadvertently given. It is denied as incorrect that amount was claimed for the reason that complainant was using the adjoining shop which falls in commercial category. Rather, the complainant has propounded a false story in respect of the other commercial connection. The other connection which is in the name of grand-mother of the complainant has no concern with the present demand. However, the complainant has himself created this version of the other commercial connection which is based upon surmises and conjectures of the complainant and infact the amount was charged due to the wrong refund given to the complainant. The amount was not charged as fine as the same relates to actual energy charges, refund of which was erroneously and inadvertently given and the same is charged to the complainant. Further, it is submitted that in present case, the complainant is at fault as he never reported that he is getting less bills as per the consumption as he was given the refund under wrong rate category as board official. The answering OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 copy of letter dated 28.04.2021 written by Balbir Kaur to the OPs, Ex.C2 copy of the supplementary bill dated 09.04.2021 issued by the OPs to consumer Avtar Singh Hara claiming Rs.73,345/- from him, Ex.C3 copy of receipt of deposit of amount of Rs.724/- issued by the OPs, Ex.C4, Ex.C5 and Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 are copies of electricity bills issued in the name of Balbir Kaur, Ex.C6 is the copy of receipt of deposit of amount of Rs.9350/- by Balbir Kaur with the OPs and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Er. Kulwinder Singh, Senior Executive Engineer, Estate Division (Special), PSPCL, Ludhiana  along with documents Ex. R1 copy of supplementary bill dated 09.04.2021, Ex.R2 copy of half margin report showing the amount of Rs.73,345/- wrongly refunded to Avtar Hara, Ex.R3 copy of detail of refund of amount given to the account No.3001910980 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.                Undisputedly, the Electric Connection bearing account No.3001910980 in respect of which the outstanding consumption charges of Rs.73,345/- were due stands in the name of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that the demand made by the opposite parties is illegal as he had been regularly paying all the previous bills of his account number. The complainant has failed to pin point as how the demand made by the opposite parties is illegal and what are the provisions/rules and regulations which have not been complied with by the opposite parties before issuing the bill of additional demand of Rs.73,345/-. The complainant has failed to discharge the intial onus of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 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.”

Further conjoint reading of document Ex. R2 shows that the calculation was made in accordance with the provisions of law and same were duly communicated to the complainant. As such, the additional demand of Rs.73,345/-  is legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Moreover, Sh. Avtar Singh being an employee of the OPs was availing concession on the electricity as per rate category of the OPs. Said Avtar Singh died on 07.01.2013 and after his death the complainant is enjoying the benefit of concessional rates of electricity. Neither in the complaint nor in the affidavit the complainant has mentioned the fact of his father Sh. Avtar Singh being an employee of the OPs and availing benefit of concessional rates of electricity. Thus the complainant is guilty of concealment of facts. Since the death of Avtar Singh i.e. from 07.01.2013 till the issuance of supplementary bill dated 09.04.2021 the complainant had been availing the benefit of concessional energy which he is not entitled to avail the same.  As such, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.73,345/-  raised through additional demand/notice bearing memo No.1961 dated 09.04.2021.

7.                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.

8.                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.

9.                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:08.11.2023.

Gobind Ram.