Punjab

Sangrur

CC/104/2019

Om Parkash Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.Ritesh Jindal

21 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                             

                                               

                                                                                           Complaint no. 104

                                                                                           Instituted on:  14.03.2019                                                                                                                                                                                   Decided on:    21.11.2019

 

Om Parkash Jindal aged about 69 years son of Late Sh. Hari Chand, resident of H.No.479, Ward No.10-B, Shivpuri Mohalla, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri,  District Sangrur.

           

                                                                                                                                                 …. Complainant  

                                                                                         Versus

 

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Head Office: The Mall, Patiala.

2.       Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division Dhuri, District Sangrur.

3.       AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City Sub Division Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

4.       Ms. Arushi, Internal Auditor C/o Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Division Dhuri, District Sangrur.

5.       Sh. H.S.Chaudhary, Chief Auditor, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala.

                                                                                                                                                     ..Opposite parties.

   

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            : Shri  Ritesh Jindal, Advocate            

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES               :   Shri Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate                         

 

Quorum:    Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

                        Ms.Vandana Sidhu, Member

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President.

      

1.             Shri Om Parkash Jindal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that a domestic electric connection bearing account number 3000601815 is installed in the name of Shimla Devi wife of Prem Kumar from whom the complainant purchased the said house along with domestic electric connection in question and since then he has been paying the bills of electricity regularly.  Further case of the complainant is that he received a bill dated 21.1.2019 for Rs.52,120/- from the Ops wherein an amount of Rs.48,088/- has been added on account of sundry charges, whereas nothing is due against the complainant. It is further averred that when enquired  from the Ops about the same, then it was told that the said amount is  of previous dues. It is further averred that the complainant never remained in arrears and as such alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.48,088/- raised on account of sundry charges in bill dated 21.1.2019 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a  consumer of the Ops, that the complainant has filed the complaint after concealing true facts and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the connection in question is running in the name of Shimla Devi but the complainant never intimated the Ops that the same has been purchased by the complainant.  It is stated that the meter of the above said connection was checked on 16.10.2018 by the officials of the Ops vide LCR number 2472 in which it was found that the display of the meter was not working as such according to provision number 21.5.2 of the Electricity Supply Code account of the consumer was overhauled/billed for the period meter remained defective/dead stop on the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year i.e. in the from June 2018 to November 2018 and the demand of Rs.48088/- was charged on account of sundry charges, which is said to be genuine one.  Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.  

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-21 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for Ops has produced Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 copies of documents and closed evidence.

4.             We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the case file. 

5.             It is an admitted case of the complainant that he purchased the premises along with the connection in question from one Shimla Devi wife of Prem Kumar and since then he has been paying the bills of electricity regularly and to support this contention the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Satpal versus P.S.E.B. through its Secretary and others 2006(2) CPC 137, wherein it has been held that a person who is staying in a house as a actual user of the electricity would be a consumer being a beneficiary.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is a consumer being beneficiary as he has been using the electricity connection in question and paying the bills regularly.

6.             Further in the present case the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 21.1.2019 for Rs.52,120/-, wherein an amount of Rs.48,088/- has been added on account of sundry charges, which the complainant has alleged to be wrong and illegal as the complainant never remained in arrears.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the checking of the meter of the complainant was conducted on 16.10.2018 by the officials of the Ops vide LRC number 2472 in which it was found that the display of the meter was not working and according to provision number 215.2 of the Electricity Supply Code account of the consumer was overhauled/billed for the period meter remained defective/dead stop on the basis of energy consumption of previous year i.e. from June 2018 to November 2018. F But, we are unable to go with the contention of the learned counsel for the Ops regarding the charging for the complainant as per the previous year consumption of the same period. It is worth mentioning here that we have perused the copy of checking report dated 16.10.2018 Ex.OP-3 and found that the checking report nowhere contains the signature of the consumer/complainant and such we are of the considered opinion that the charges cannot be levied on the complainant on the basis of this checking report Ex.OP-2.  Moreover, it is not open for the Ops to charge the consumer by adding the previous consumption charges in the current consumption bill and the Ops are duty bound to issue the separate notice for the same if any dues are chargeable from the complainant as provided in Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 2017 Instruction No. 93.1 which provides that here may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment or demand / load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/ multiplication factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities etc. In all such cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges shall be shown as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills shall be issued separately giving complete details of the charges in regard to slowness of meter, wrong connections of the meter and application of wrong tariff/multiplication factor etc. In such cases the copy of relevant instructions under which the charges have been levied shall also be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of cases by consumer forums, if approached by the consumer.

7.             In the sequel of above discussion, the demand raised by the OPs in the bill dated 21.01.2019 for Rs.48,088/- is not justified and is illegal one and the same is hereby quashed.  Ops are further directed to issue the electricity bills to the complainant on the  basis of actual consumption and adjust the amount already paid, if any in the future bills of consumption. The Ops are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order be complied with within a period of 30 days of receipt of copy of this order.    A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                     

                Pronounced.

                November 21, 2019.

 

 

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

                 Member                    Member                  President