Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/104

Narinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Narinder Chhiba

18 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:104 dated 04.03.2021.                                                         Date of decision: 18.07.2024.

 

Narinder Kumar Bhardwaj aged 64 years S/o. Sh. Mangat Rai Bhardwaj, aged 64 years, tenant in shop situated at Khurmi Complex, near Prem Vaishno Dhaba, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Dist. Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                 ..…Complainant

                                                                             Mobile No.9914827319

                                                Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its C.M.D., The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division I, Khanna, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                       …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act for direction to the opposite party not to claim the alleged demand of Rs.65390/- being null, void, ineffective as no amount is due towards the complainant nor the complainant is liable to pay the same

AND

For direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.51840/- received by the opposite party from the complainant out of the aforesaid alleged demand pertaining to A/c No.K33CK270698F

AND

For awarding compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant on account of deficiency in service provided by the opposite party along with costs on the basis of oral and documentary evidence.

 

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gurinder Singh, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Varinder Kumar, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a tenant in the shop owned by Late Sh. Hans Raj S/o. Sh. Bachan Lal as per rent note executed between the parties. An electric connection bearing account No.K33CK270698F has been installed in the said shop which was provided by the owner at the time of taking the same on rent. The complainant has been making payment of bills regularly to the OPs. The complainant stated that the meter was not working properly and the same jumped due to which the OPs raised a demand of Rs.65,390/- which is uncalled as he has not used the electricity to that extent. The consumption of the complainant as per previous bills was not so high. The complainant had to deposit Rs.35,000/- through cheque on 28.02.2020 besides another amount of Rs.16,840/- through cheque on 01.02.2021. According to the complainant, the demand raised by the OPs is totally uncalled for. The mater was referred to Dispute Settlement Committee but the Dispute Settlement Committee without affording any opportunity of being heard to the complainant and without going through the facts that earlier to there was no such consumption and demand raised by the OPs is not tenable, the OPs failed to withdraw the alleged demand. The OPs further did not consider the consumption of previous months. The complainant further stated that due to illegal demand of the OPs, he had to face harassment, pain and sufferings for which he is entitled to compensation. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs not to claim the demand of Rs.65,390/- and further to refund the amount of Rs.51,840/- received by them from the complainant. The complainant also prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,00/-.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; lack of jurisdiction; the complaint being barred etc. The OPs stated that the electric connection in question is running in the name of Sh. Hans Raj, which is being used for NRS category having sanctioned load of 4.04 KW. The bill for the month of July 2020 was sent for 7160 units for Rs.65,390/-. The complainant challenged the meter. The meter was sent to ME Lab with store challan No.245 dated 27.08.2020 and the same was found dead in the ME Lab. After taking into consideration the consumption data for the last five yeasts, the matter was decided by the Dispute Settlement Committee where the consumer referred the matter for decision who decided the matter and suggested that in case the consumer is not agreeing with the said decision he can file appeal within a period of two months before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala. The OPs further stated that since the matter has been adjudicated upon by the Dispute Settlement Committee, the present complaint does not lie before this Commission.                            On merits, the OPs reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The OPs have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The complainant filed replication to the written statement of the OPs reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint and controverted those mentioned in the written statement of the OPs.

4.                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 is the copy of rent note, Ex. C2 to Ex. C4 are the copies of previous bills, Ex. C5 is the copy of bill dated 23.07.2020 of Rs.65,390/-, Ex. C6 is the copy of cheque of Rs.35,000/-, Ex. C7 is the copy of cheque of Rs.16,840/-, Ex. C8 is the copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Amandeep Singh Khangura, Additional SE, Khanna Division, Punjab State Power corporation Limited, District Ludhiana  along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy letter dated 29.12.2020 of the OPs, Ex. R2 is the copy of letter dated 14.01.2021 of the OPs, Ex. R3 is the copy of account/consumption details of the complainant, Ex. R4 is the copy of order dated 14.12.2020 of Dispute Settlement Committee, Ex. R5, Ex. R6 is the copy of consumption data, Ex. R7 is the copy of challan No.245 dated 07.03.2020, Ex. R8 is the copy of job order for device replacement, Ex. R9 is the copy of envelop of notice issued to the OPs and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, replication, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

7.                Undisputedly, the electric connection bearing account No.3000875820 (NRS) in respect of which the outstanding consumption charges of Rs.65,390/- were due stands in the name of one Sh. Hans Raj. The complainant is a tenant in the shop where the electricity connection is being installed. The complainant has alleged that the demand made by the OPs is illegal as he had been regularly paying all the previous bills of this account number. The complainant has failed to pin point how the demand made by the OPs is illegal and what are the provisions/rules and regulations which have not been complied with by the OPs before issuing the bill of additional demand of Rs.65,390/-. The complainant has failed to discharge the initial 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.”

Further conjoint reading of documents Ex. R2 to Ex. R6 shows that the calculation was made in accordance with the provisions of law and same were duly communicated to the complainant. Further it is the complainant who referred the dispute to the Dispute Settlement Committee. He was duly heard and thereafter, final order was passed. The complainant has also not canvassed or elaborated the grounds to assail the order of Dispute Settlement committee. As such, the additional demand of Rs.65,390/- is legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

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 todefective 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)                                (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                                                President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:18.07.2024.

Gobind Ram.