Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/460

Rohtas Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vishal Ghai

16 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:460 dated 11.10.2021.                                                        Date of decision: 16.03.2023.

 

Rohtas Kumar son of Sh. Hari Chand age about 74 years, resident of New Abadi Akalgarh, KCG, Sudhar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                              ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its CMD.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Divisional Office Model Town, Division Special through its Addl. S.E., Ludhiana.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub-Divisional Office Adda Dakha, Special through its Addl. S.E., Ludhiana.                                                                                                    …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 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            :         Sh. Vishal Ghai, Advocate.

For OPs                         :         Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the electricity connection bearing account No.U13SB090819F was installed in the premises of the complainant in his name with sanctioned load 7.96 K.W. situated at village Akalgarh in District Ludhiana. The complainant received exorbitant energy bill dated 26.09.2021 of Rs.27,730/- for the period 03.08.2021 to 26.09.2021 for 55 days against the consumption of 2947 units. The complainant further submitted that he received the previous electricity bill dated 03.08.2021 from the opposite parties for the period of 06.06.2021 to 03.08.2021 for 59 days against the consumption of 3149 units. He approached the opposite parties number of times for correction of the bill as 202 units less from the previous bill but despite that the current bill of Rs.27,730/- and previous bill is Rs.27,620/-. The complainant came to know that the consumption is less but the bill is Rs.210/- more than last one. The opposite parties forced him to deposit the entire bill but he paid Rs.15,000/- out of entire bill under protest. The complainant submitted that he executed an affidavit along with one application for demanding clarification with regard to ED surcharge and IDF/SC tax through speed post but no reply was received from the opposite parties. The complainant claimed that the officials of opposite parties came to disconnect his electricity connection and proclaimed that if he does not deposit the entire amount the connection will be disconnected and the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which he has suffered financial loss, mental pain and agony for which he is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the opposite parties not to disconnect his electricity connection and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental pain, agony and financial loss etc. to the complainant.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement and assailed the complaint on the ground of mis-joinder of parties, maintainability of complaint and there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties alleged that the entire disputed amounts relates to the regular consumption charges whatsoever consumed by the complainant. The bill dated 26.09.2021 is legal and genuine and the same is based upon current consumption charges which the consumer is liable to pay the same.

                   On merits, the opposite parties reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite parties submitted that there is a difference between the costs of energy charges between the bill dated 26.09.2021 and 03.08.2021 which are clearly reflected from the bills dated 26.09.2021 and 03.08.2021. Moreover, the ED stands for electricity duty and IDF stands for Infrastructure Development Charges and the same were demanded by them from the complainant through his electricity bill dated 26.09.2021 and 03.08.2021. Moreover, the opposite parties used to charge the ED in the shape of 15% of the energy bill and similarly used to charge the IDF charges in the shape of 5% of the energy bill and in the case of the complainant they charged the said taxes in the bill of the consumer. The opposite parties further alleged that no threat on their part was hurled. The opposite parties denied any deficiency in service on its part and in the end, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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 is the bill dated 03.08.2021, Ex. C1/A is the bill dated 03.08.2021, Ex. C3 is the copy of payment receipt of Rs.27,620/-,  Ex. C3 is the bill dated 26.09.2021, Ex. C4 is the copy of cheque  of Rs.15,000/- dated 05.10.2021, Ex. C5 is the copy of receipt  of Rs.15,000/-, Ex. C6 is the copy of letter written by complainant and others to the Chief Engineer, PSPCL, Patiala dated 13.08.2021, Ex. C7 is the copy of affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C7/A is the copy of signatures of the mohalla people, Ex. C8 and Ex. C9 are the postal receipts and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Dharam Paul, Additional SE, Adda Dakha Division, PSPCL, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R1 copy of bill dated 26.09.2021, Ex. R2 copy of bill dated 03.08.2021, Ex. R3 copy of bill dated 03.08.2021 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 statement, affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.     

6.                Undisputedly, the electric connection bearing account No.U13SB090819F in respect of which the outstanding consumption charges of Rs.27,730/- were due stands in the name of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that the demand made by the opposite party is illegal as he had been regularly paying all the previous bills of his account number. However, it is not disputed that the complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- on 05.10.2021 through cheque. But the complainant has failed to pin point how the demand made by the opposite party is illegal and what are the provisions/rules and regulations which have not been complied with by the opposite party before issuing the bill of demand of Rs.27,730/- The complainant has failed to discharge the intial 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.”

During the course of arguments, the counsel for the opposite parties has referred to the new tariff order applicable w.e.f. 01.06.2021 to 31.03.2022. The relevant entry for domestic supply is reproduced as under:-

Sr. No.	Category			Existing Tariff as per T.O. for FY 2020-21 continued from 01.04.2021 to 31.05.2021			New Tariff w.e.f. 01.06.2021 to 31.03.2022
				Fixed for Charges per Month		Energy Charges	Fixed Charges for Month	Energy Charges
I	I			III		IV	V	VI
A	Permanent supply
1	Domestic Supply	Above 7 KW & upto 50 Kw	0-100 kWh	75/kW	4.49/kW   h		95/kW	4.64/kWh
								6.50/kWh
			101-300 kWh		6.34/kWh
			Above 300 kWh		7.30/kWh			7.50/kWh

 As such, the demand of Rs.27,730/-  is legal and valid and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

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 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.

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:16.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Rohtas Kumar Vs PSPCL                                              CC/21/460

Present:       Sh. Vishal Ghai, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Yash Paul, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, 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.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.03.2023.

Gobind Ram.