Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/449

Sunil Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

compl.in person

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 449 of 13.06.2016

Date of Decision            :   28.02.2017

 

Sunil Kapoor son of Sh.Ram Nath Kapoor son of Sh.Gurmukh Dass, resident of Block-1, House No.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through its Chairman.

2.Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, U-1, Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana-141001 through its X.E.N./S.D.O.

Opposite parties

 

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :        In person

For OPs                          :       Sh.G.S.Pahwa, Advocate 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant consumer of Ops with Contract Account No.3002313313 under Consumer Account No.W41KF050347K received different electricity bills of different amounts on different dates for the consumed electricity. These bills were of dates 22.7.2014, 5.9.2015, 17.12.2015, 25.01.2016 and 17.5.2016 of amounts of Rs.28,320/-, Rs.4070/-, Rs.1350/-, Rs.840/- and Rs.2000/- respectively. It is claimed that bare look of each of the said receipts shows that same neither bear the signature of the concerned Clerk and nor it discloses the name of the issuing authority. It is claimed that Ops intentionally and deliberately issuing the receipts in contravention of law governing the issuance of legal, proper and valid receipts against payments. Ops on account of this act alleged to be indulging in unfair trade practice and restricted trade practice. Complainant visited Ops on 5.8.2014, 11.9.2015, 22.12.2015, 27.1.2016 and 18.5.2016 for requesting the concerned Clerk manning the billing cash counter as well as the concerned senior officials of Ops to issue proper and valid receipts in lieu of the earlier issued receipts, but they denied the said genuine requests of the complainant without any rhyme or reason. Such receipts are issued regularly to the consumers despite the fact that those are null and void and has no value in the eyes of law to the knowledge of Ops. Complainant claims to have suffered mental tension and harassment and as such, directions sought for issuing of valid and proper receipts in lieu of five numbered receipts mentioned in complaint. Compensation of Rs.50,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- and punitive and exemplary costs of Rs.30,000/- more claimed.

2.                In joint written statement filed by OP1 and OP2, it is claimed that the complaint is not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Ops are issuing the computer generated receipts like the one produced by the complainant. The name of the division as well as name of the person who issued the receipt is printed there on. All the legal and valid receipts against payment were issued. Signatures on the computer generated receipts are not required and all the receipts produced are owned and admitted by Ops. It is claimed that the complainant is in habit of filing false and frivolous complaints. Admittedly, the complainant is consumer of electricity connection in question, due to which, he received various bills. It is claimed that proper receipts were issued qua the amounts deposited by the complainant. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his two affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CA1 along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C23 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Er.Sanjeev Prabhakar, Additional S.E. and then closed evidence.

5.                Synopsis of written arguments submitted by the complainant, but not by Ops. Oral arguments of complainant as well as counsel for Ops heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                 It is vehemently contended by the complainant that there is a big scam on the part of Ops in issuing receipts like Ex.C2, Ex.C5, Ex.C7, Ex.C9 and Ex.C11 against payments without putting signatures by anyone. Bills on record are produced as Ex.C1, Ex.C4, Ex.C6, Ex.C8 and Ex.C10 respectively is the contention of the complainant. Undisputedly, the complainant is a consumer of Ops because that fact has been admitted in the written statement. Ops in their written statement have owned the receipts referred above by claiming that computer generated receipts need not be signed by anyone. However, complainant vehemently contends that the receipts referred above have no authenticity   because of non bearing of signatures of anyone and as such, it is claimed by the complainant that Ops are adopting unfair trade practice and restricted trade practice. Account number of the complainant on all the receipts is mentioned and that is why, Ops able to identify the computer generated receipts issued by them. As the authenticity of the computer generated receipts have not been challenged  by Ops and that is why, no fresh demand put forth regarding the paid amounts. The computer generated receipts certainly not to be signed by anyone. As the amounts of the receipts never claimed by Ops, but the issue of receipts acknowledged by Ops in their written statement and as such, certainly no deficiency in service on the part of Ops is there.

7.                Retention of electronic record provided by Section 7 of Information Technology Act, 2000. Use of electronic record and digital signature in Government offices, authorities, bodies or agencies provided by Section 6 of Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 3(3) of Information Technology Act, 2000 provides that any person by use of a public key of the subscriber can verify the electronic record. So, access to the electronic record of PSPCL, an authority controlled by the Government, can be had by use of the public key of the subscriber for verification of the issued receipts. So, due safeguard regarding authenticity of the receipts issued by the PSPCL or its division provided by Section 3(3) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

8.                Section 11 of Information Technology Act, 2000 provides that an electronic record shall be attributed to the originator, if it was sent by originator himself or by a person who had the authority to act on behalf of the originator in respect of that electronic record or by an information system programmed by or on behalf of the originator to operate automatically. It is the case of the complainant put forth through para no.4 of the complaint that Ops have been issuing the receipts like the one relied upon by the complainant. So, this assertion of the complainant in para no.4 of the complaint itself leans in favour of holding that the electronic record of the receipt sent by the originator itself or by the authorized agents i.e. employees of Ops. So, the electronic record in question liable to be attributed to PSPCL, being the originator, as per Section 11 of Information Technology Act, 2000. So, if signatures of officials of Ops are not there on the receipts, then due to that alone receipts in question cannot be declared to be sham by complainant or by anybody else, particularly when Ops have owned the issue of these receipts by its officials.

9.                Section 85B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that if any proceedings involving a secured electronic record, is produced, then               Courts shall presume such record to have not been altered unless proved to the contrary. Section 85A of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that Courts shall presume every electronic record purporting to be an agreement containing the digital signatures of the parties to be concluded by such parties. Section 81A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that Courts shall presume the genuineness of every electronic record purporting to be the Official Gazette or purporting to be electronic record directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such electronic record is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from the proper custody. In this case, admission of the complainant itself establishes that the bills/receipts in question issued by the Ops and as such, complainant himself acknowledged as if the originator of the receipts attributable to Ops. So, in view of presumptions referred above and in view of non adduction of any proof qua in genuineness or fakeness of the receipts in question, it has to be held that the complainant by concocting a story has filed this complaint probably with the intention of minting money. No harassment caused to the complainant at any stage because demand of the paid amounts never raised by Ops and nor Ops denied the authenticity of the receipts relied by the complainant at any stage. So, certainly submission advanced by Sh.G.S.Pahwa, Advocate has force that this complaint is filed either for harassing the Ops or its officials or for extracting illegal money. Consumer Law not enacted for enabling the consumer to encash  unjust enrichment. As the complaint is vexatious and frivolous and as such, the same merits dismissal with costs awarded in favour of the Ops. However, meager costs need be awarded, particularly when responses submitted by the complainant alleged to have remained unattended and record regarding the date of visits is not produced by the complainant.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/- awarded in favour of Ops. Complainant will deposit these costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                           President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:28.02.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.