Punjab

Sangrur

CC/517/2018

Pushpinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh.G.S.Chatta

06 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                             

                                               

                                                                                    Complaint No.       517 

                                                                                     Instituted on:         20.12.2018

                                                                                     Decided on:          06.02.2020

 

Pushpinder Singh son of Sh. Mehar Singh, resident of Village Chandu, Tehsil Moonak,  District Sangrur.

           

                                                …. Complainant  

                                Versus

 

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

2.       Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Bangan, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.

                                          ..Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            : Shri  G.S.Chatha, Advocate            

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES               : Shri Nachattar Singh, 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 Pushpinder Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that  he is a consumer of domestic electric connection bearing account number S71MD360153L and since then he has been paying the bills of electricity regularly.  Further case of the complainant is that he received a bill dated 11.11.2018 wherein the Ops demanded an amount of Rs.21,367/- on account of sundry charges whereas nothing was outstanding against the complainant. The complainant approached the OP number 2 regarding the same but it was told that it is a balance amount.  The complainant has alleged the said demand to be wrong and illegal. 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.21,367/- raised on account of sundry charges in bill dated 11.11.2018 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 complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation,  that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint is bad for non joinder/misjoinder of the parties.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the connection in question. It has been admitted that the demand of Rs.21367/- has been raised against the complainant, but it is stated that earlier another connection bearing account number MD36/66 was running in the name of Mehar Singh father of the complainant which was permanently disconnected vide PDCO No.79/49618 dated 13.6.2013 and an amount of Rs.21367/- was outstanding against the said connection and the same was charged through electric connection bearing number MD36/153, as such the demand is said to be genuine one.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. The learned counsel for Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 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.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that he is a consumer of one domestic electric connection bearing account number S71MD360153L and since then he has been paying the bills of electricity regularly.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant received a bill dated 11.11.2018 wherein the Ops demanded an amount of Rs.21,367/- on account of sundry charges whereas nothing was outstanding against the complainant. The complainant approached OP number 2 regarding the same but it was told that it is a previous balance amount.  The complainant has alleged further that the said demand is wrong and illegal and prayed for its withdrawal.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the demand of Rs.21367/- has been raised against the complainant but it is stated that earlier another connection bearing account number MD36/66 was running in the name of Mehar Singh father of the complainant which was permanently disconnected vide PDCO No.79/49618 dated 13.6.2013 and an amount of Rs.21367/- was outstanding against the said connection and the same was charged through electric connection bearing number MD36/153, as such the demand is said to be genuine one.

7.     The main issue involved in this complaint is that whether opposite parties are entitled to recover the amount where the opposite parties had not followed the rules and regulations and committed violation of rules and regulations of the Punjab Electricity Act, 2003?

8. The regulations 93.1 of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, (First Edition 2010) by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited states as under:-

 

"There 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/unauthorized use of electricity 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/malpractices 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 theft cases, slowness of meters, wrong connections of the meter and unauthorized of use electricity 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"

 

        As per said instruction 93.1 contained in Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, 2017 by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, Patiala, in case a bill is to be raised on account of defect in the metering equipment or unauthorized use of electricity etc, then separate bill has to be issued containing complete details of the charges. Copy of the relevant instructions, under which, the charges have been levied, has also to be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of the cases by established Authorities. No such separate bill shown to be sent to the complainant and nor copy of the relevant instructions under which charges to be levied, shown to be sent to the complainant and as such, there is violation of this Rule.

9.             Fora/Authorities established under law has jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to excessive billing in the 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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited(BSNL) and another Vs. M.D. Imtiyaz-IV(2014) CPJ-25 (Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). So, certainly this Forum has jurisdiction to decide the matter in question, particularly when the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice as discussed hereinafter.

10.            Violation of Regulation 30.1.2 of Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission(Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2014)(as came in force w.e.f.1.1.2015) even is committed in this case because instead of issue of separate notice for recovering the amount of Rs.21,367/- the said amount was raised in the electricity bill dated 11.11.2018 Ex.C-2 itself. That is violative of regulation 30.1.2 of these regulations of 2014, which reads as under:-

“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 8 clubbed with the current electricity bill. The arrear bill cum notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrears 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 current energy bill.”

 

11.            Bill Ex.C-2 does not indicate the nature and period of arrears along with calculation details of such arrears and as such, certainly demand of Rs.21367/- has been put forth in violation of regulation 30.1.2 referred above.

12.            So, the demand of Rs.21367/- claimed as sundry charges amount through composite bill Ex.C-2 is liable to be quashed being violative of rules and regulations and principles of natural justice.

13.            Even as per law laid down in case titled as M/s Kundan Mill Board and Paper Mills and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others-2014(2)Civil Court Cases-044(Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court)(DB), any internal audit objection is only an opinion and the same by itself will not be a justification for raising of supplementary demand in initial bill. So, keeping in view this proposition of law in mind and the fact that audit note is just an opinion of audit party, recovery on the basis of such audit note alone cannot be effected until due opportunity of hearing to the complainant afforded for showing cause that claimed amount is actually recoverable.

14.            In the case law titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Ashwani Kumar in R.S.A. No.1865 of 1991 decided on 09.12.1992, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held as under:-

" Constitution of India, Articles 14 & 16- Punjab State Electricity Board Abridged Conditions of Supply, Clause 14(f)- Notice/Natural justice- Defect in electricity meter Defective C.T.and P.Ts- Genuine Calculations- Normal Principle is that ever provision should be interpreted in such a manner that there is no violation of principles of natural justice- While passing any order under Clause 15 above it is incumbent upon the authorities to grant an opportunity to the consumer failing which action is bound to suffer from the vice of arbitrariness which may itself attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution- Any Public authority discharging Governmental functions have a duty to act fairly, and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and it is not open to act arbitrarily and raise demands for substantial amounts without even affording an opportunity of hearing or representation to the citizens- Board advised to evolve a fair and just modern procedure to meet the need of the day."

 

15.    Moreover, as per Section 56(2) of the Punjab Electricity Act 2003 states as follow:-

" Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after  the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity".

 

             It is clear that opposite parties cannot recover the amount after the expiry of the period of 2 years being barred by limitation as provided under Section 56(2) of the Punjab Electricity Act 2003. In the present case the opposite parties have raised the demand of the year 2013 in the year 2018 i.e. after the expiry of more than five years. Hence, the opposite parties issued this bill after a period of 5 years, so it is barred by the limitation as provided under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003. The opposite parties in para No.3 of reply to the complaint admitted that, "earlier another electric connection MD36/66 was running in the name of Mehar Singh father of the complainant. The electric connection was discounted. Gurpreet Singh JE visited the premises of the complainant on 21.9.2018 and found that electric connection bearing account number MD36/153L is running in the name of complainant and defaulting amount of Rs.21367/- was related to the electric connection bearing account MD36/0066 in the name of Mehar Singh father of the complainant. The connection of Mehar Singh has been permanent disconnected vide PDCO No.79/49618 dated 13.6.2013 which was effected by Nachhater Singh, JE. The electric connection MD36/0066 was running in the same house where the electric connection of complainant is running. So the amount of Rs.21367/- was chargeable to the electric connection bearing account number MD36/153. After receiving the checking report dated 21.9.2018 the OP number 2 wrote letter no. 1712 dated 17.10.2018 for depositing the amount of Rs.21367/- within seven days if the amount is not deposited then the same will be charged to electric connection bearing account number MD36/0153.”

 

16.            So in view of the admission by the opposite parties for the issuance of bill dated 11.11.2018 for recovery of the dues of Rs.21367/- of Mehar Singh of the year 2013 is definitely time barred. The judgment as relied upon by the complainant in case Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Permanent Lok Adalat (PUS), Sangrur and another in CWP No.58 of 2016 decided on 07.01.2016 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court is applicable in the present complaint.

17.            In the sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.21367/- raised in the bill dated 11.11.2018 Ex.C-2. The OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses. This order be complied with within a period of 45 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.

18.            This complaint could not be decided and order could not be pronounced within stipulated time period because posts of President and Lady Member are lying vacant since 7.8.2018 and 16.09.2018 respectively. The President is doing additional duty only for two days a week.                    

                Pronounced.

                February 6, 2020.

 

 

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

                 Member                    Member                  President