DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint No. 28
Instituted on: 23.01.2019
Decided on: 30.01.2020
Raghvir Sigh son of Shri Gurdev Singh, resident of Village Bhindran, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala through its Chief Managing Director.
2. Senior Executive Engineer, D.S. Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sangrur.
3. S.D.O. Sub Urban Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sangrur.
..Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Akashdeep, Advocate
FOR THE OPP. PARTIES : Shri Mohit Verma, 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 Raghvir 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 one domestic electric connection bearing account number 3001059889 and since then he has been paying the bills of electricity regularly. Further case of the complainant is that he received a bill dated 13.08.2018 for 121 units and a sum of Rs.6834+41 has been added as sundry charges and Rs.2087+339 has been added as arrears of current year. After receipt of the bill the complainant approached OP number 3 who admitted that the bill is wrong and advised the complainant to deposit Rs.2688/-, which the complainant deposited on 30.8.2018. Thereafter on 11.9.2018 employees of the OPs visited the house of the complainant and threatened him to deposit the amount of Rs.3000/- immediately or they will disconnect the connection of the complainant and accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.3000/- on 11.9.2018. Thereafter the OP number 3 issued another bill for Rs.6240/- on 8.10.2018. Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but all in vain. Further case of the complainant is that OP number 3 issued another electricity bill for Rs.8170/- on 11.12.2018 wherein consumption was shown as 212 units and a sum of Rs.1138+41 has been added as sundry charges and Rs.4365+672 has been added as arrears of current year. As such, it is stated that the demand of Rs.8170/- is wrong and illegal. Thus, 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.8170/- raised in the bill dated 11.12.2018 and to refund Rs.3000/- got deposited by the complainant under the threat of disconnection 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 has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the connection in question. It has been stated further that on 13.8.2018 the OPs issued bill for Rs.10370/-. It has been further averred that the meter of the complainant was burnt in the month of May, 2015 and the old burnt meter was replaced with new one and the old burnt meter was duly packed and sent to the ME laboratory Sangrur and when the old burnt meter was checked by the ME laboratory Sangrur, it was found by the ME laboratory that the final reading of the old burnt meter was 1846 units but the consumer deposited the consumption billed upto 650 units regarding the old burnt meter. Therefore, the OPs deducted the deposited 650 units out of 1846 units i.e. 1846 units – 650 units = 1196 units billed amount is due towards the complainant, thereafter the OPs charged the amount of 1196 units i.e. Rs.6379/- along with Rs.520/- meter replacement fee and thereafter the bill amount was charged from the consumer. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 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 the complainant is a consumer of one domestic electric connection bearing account number 3001059889 and since then he has been paying the bills of electricity regularly. Further case of the complainant is that he received a bill dated 13.08.2018 for 121 units and a sum of Rs.6834+41 has been added as sundry charges and Rs.2087+339 has been added as arrears of current year. After receipt of the bill the complainant approached OP number 3 who admitted that the bill is wrong and advised the complainant to deposit Rs.2688/-, which the complainant deposited on 30.8.2018. Thereafter on 11.9.2018 employees of the OPs visited the house of the complainant and threatened him to deposit the amount of Rs.3000/- immediately or they will disconnect the connection of the complainant and accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.3000/- on 11.9.2018. Thereafter the OP number 3 issued another bill for Rs.6240/- on 8.10.2018. Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but all in vain. Further case of the complainant is that OP number 3 issued another electricity bill for Rs.8170/- on 11.12.2018 wherein consumption was shown as 212 units and a sum of Rs.1138+41 has been added as sundry charges and Rs.4365+672 has been added as arrears of current year. As such, it is stated that the demand of Rs.8170/- is wrong and illegal.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended that on 13.8.2018 the OPs issued bill for Rs.10370/-. It has been further averred that the meter of the complainant was burnt in the month of May, 2015 and the old burnt meter was replaced with a new one and the old burnt meter was duly packed and sent to the ME laboratory Sangrur and when the old burnt meter was checked by the ME laboratory Sangrur, it was found by the ME laboratory that the final reading of the old burnt meter was 1846 units but the consumer deposited the consumption billed upto 650 units regarding the old burnt meter. Therefore, the OPs deducted the deposited 650 units out of 1846 units i.e. 1846 units – 650 units = 1196 units billed amount is due towards the complainant, thereafter the OPs charged the amount of 1196 units i.e. Rs.6379/- along with Rs.520/- meter replacement fee and thereafter the bill amount was charged from the consumer.
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, 2017 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.8170/- the said amount was raised in the electricity bill dated 11.12.2018 Ex.C-7 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-7 does not indicate the nature and period of arrears along with calculation details of such arrears and as such, certainly demand of Rs.8170/- has been put forth in violation of regulation 30.1.2 referred above.
12. So, the demand of Rs.8170/- claimed as sundry charges amount through composite bill Ex.C-7 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 2015 in the year 2018 i.e. after the expiry of more than two years. Hence, the opposite parties issued this bill after a period of 3 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(C) of reply to the complaint admitted that, "the consumer/complainant meter was burnt in the month of May 2015 and the old burnt meter was replaced with new one and the old meter was duly packed and sent to the ME Lab. Sangrur for verifying the actual and factual position of the meter and due to the said reason, the meter was sent to ME Lab. Sangrur and when the said old burnt meter was checked by the M.E. Lab. Sangrur and at the time of checking the same through store challan no.79 dated 13.4.2018, the M.E.Lab. Sangrur found that the final reading of the said old burnt meter was 1846 units but the consumer/complainant deposited the consumption billed amount upto 650 units regarding the old burnt meter. Therefore the OPs deducted the deposited 650 units out of 1846 units i.e. 1846 units – 650 units = 1196 units billed amount in due towards the consumer/complainant, therefore, the OPs have charged the amount of consumption remaining units 1196 units i.e. Rs.6379/- alongwith Rs.520/- meter replacement fee and the said amount was charged from the consumer through sundry register and due to the said reason, the amount demanded from the consumer in his bill dated 13.8.2018.”
16. So in view of the admission by the opposite parties for the issuance of bill dated 11.12.2018 for the consumption of the year 2015 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 fully 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.8170/- raised in the bill dated 11.12.2018. 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.
January 30, 2020.
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Vandana Sidhu) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member Member President
