Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/67/2015

Surinder Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Taveesh Goyal

26 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.67 of 2015

                                                                                              Date of institution:  24/07/2015   

                                                                                      Date of decision   :  26.11.2015

Surinder Bansal aged about 62 years son of Sh. Saroop Chand Bansal, resident of Sec.4-D, H.No.41, Shastri Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer/Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Mandi Gobindgarh of Punjab State Electricity Board, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

 …..Opposite parties   

Complaint under Sections 11,12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member  

Present :    Sh. Taveesh Goyal, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.                                    OPs exparte.                                    

ORDER

 Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                  Complainant, Surinder Bansal son of Sh. Saroop Chand Bansal, resident of Sec.4-D, H.No.41, Shastri Nagar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 11,12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainant is having electric connection bearing No. K21CE190294H installed in his house. On 07.11.2012 the complainant received a bill amounting to Rs.72,820/- which included Rs.63,886/- as sundry charges. The complainant immediately rushed to PSPCL Mandi Gobindgarh and inquired about the huge amount of bill. It was replied by the OP that the sundry charges are related to the bill for the year 2007 to 2008 of his another electricity connection installed at other property of the complainant situated at Amloh, which are pending.  The OPs threaten the complainant to disconnect his electric connection. Therefore, the complainant  paid the said bill. Thereafter, the complainant on 17.12.2012 and then on 30.04.2013, in order to receive the exact information, filed an application under RTI  Act to Assistant Public Information Officer, O/o Sr. Xen/DS Spl. Div. PSPCL, Amloh and Mandi Gobindgarh. Thereafter, on 26.09.2014 the complainant filed another application under RTI Act to Assistant Public Information Officer, O/o Sr. Xen/DS Spl. Div. PSPCL, Amloh to reach the truth. The Assistant Public Information Officer, O/o Sr. Xen/DS Spl. Div. PSPCL, Amloh, in response to the application dated 26.09.2014, replied that there is no limitation period to recover any bill and on the other hand Assistant Public Information Officer, O/o Sr. Xen/DS Spl. Div. PSPCL, Mandi Gobindgarh,  in reply to the application dated 30.04.2013, replied that there is limitation period of 3 years to recover any bill as per Arbitration Act.  Also Section 60-A of the Electricity Supply Act 1948 prescribes a limitation of 3 years for the recovery of any bill. But the OPs illegally sent the bill for recovery of huge amount and threatened to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.63,886/- which were deposited by the complainant as sundry charges, Rs.30,000/- as litigation charges and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental tension, and loss etc. suffered by him.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but they choose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence they were proceeded against exparte.

4.               In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence copy of bill dated 07.11.2012 Ex. C-1, copy of receipt dated 20.11.2012 Ex.C-2, copy of sale deed Ex. C-3, copies of applications under RTI Act Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-8, affidavit of complainant Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence.

5.                The ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 there is a limitation of 2 years for recovery of arrears and the same can only be recovered, if it is shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied. The ld. counsel further submitted that in both the RTI replies received from the OPs they have nowhere stated or explained about the continuously recoverable as arrear of charges. He pleaded, it is very well established from the replies i.e Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8 that the OPs were not able to explain about the amount being recovered after a period of 5 years from the complainant. The ld. counsel also pointed out that the OPs in the RTI reply had admitted that a sum of Rs.3150/- was deposited as security and that till date, the same was also not forfeited towards arrears. The ld. counsel argued that it, is very well established and proved from the evidence placed on record that the OPs did not bother to follow the prescribed procedure as per the Electricity Act,2003 and the Instructions Manual of OPs. The ld. counsel further argued that it is proved from the act and conduct of the officials of the OPs that they had acted in a negligent manner while issuing the bill i.e Ex.C-1. The ld. counsel further pleaded that the present complaint deserves to be accepted and the complainant be compensated as the OPs have committed deficiency of services by not following the requisite procedure.

6.                After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the complainant and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the complainant. It is well established from the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and Electricity Supply Instructions Manual issued by PSPCL/ OPs, that the OPs had failed to proceed as per the prescribed procedure.

7.                Section 56 of the Electricity Act,2003 states the procedure and sub Section (2) of Section 56 prescribes the period of limitation for recovery of the arrears. The relevant Section reads as:

“ 56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment.- (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days' notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer:

PROVIDED that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off if such person deposits, under protest,-

1. an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or
2. the electricity charges due from him for each month calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid by him during the preceding six months, whichever is less, pending disposal of any dispute between him and the licensee.

(2) 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.”

The Electricity Supply Instructions Manual issued by PSPCL/OP no.1 under Section VI, Clause 93 states the procedure and limitation. The relevant clause reads as:

“93. PAYMENT OF ARREARS NOT ORIGINALLY BILLED: 93.1 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.”

93.2 “Limitation: Under Section 56(2) of the Act no sum due from any consumer 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 arrears of charges for electricity supplied.”

8.                It is well, evident from the RTI replies i.e Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-8, that the OPs miserably neglected to follow the procedure. The OPs also failed to explain if the said bill i.e Ex.C-1 was shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied in the RTI information provided by the OPs to the complainant. The OPs did not even bother to forfeit the security deposited by the complainant at the time of applying for the connection in the year 1999.

9.               In our opinion in the present case the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur is fully applicable. As observed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as V.Kishan Rao Vs Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital,III (2010)CPJ 1(SC), “In case where negligence is evident, the principle of res ipsa loquitur operates.”

10.              Accordingly in view of our aforesaid discussion and the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and Electricity Supply Manual issued by PSPCL/ OP no.1, this Forum is of the opinion that the OPs proceeded in an arbitrary manner for recovery of arrears beyond the prescribed limitation period. Thus the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs. Rs.63,886/- charged as sundry charges of the previous meter alongwith 6 % interest per annum from the date of deposit i.e 20.11.2012 (Ex.C2). We also find that complainant is held entitled for compensation on account of mental and physical harassment caused by the OPs. A sum of Rs.5000/- is awarded as compensation alongwith litigation cost of Rs.3500/-. The OPs are directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise they shall be liable to pay 9 % interest per annum on the total cost awarded. The present complaint stands partly allowed.  

11.              The arguments on the complaint were heard on 23.11.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:26.11.2015                                               (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                                                          President

 

(A.B. Aggarwal) Member