Complainant Vidhushi Sharma through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned demand amounting to Rs.12,629/- raised as sundry charges in the bill dated 28.04.2016 and to set aside/quash the bill in question. Complainant has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony and physical harassment including Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she had installed an electric connection in her house bearing A/c No.G-55MT-371041N and was using the electricity supply from the above said connection and was also paying the electricity charges to the opposite parties continuously without any default and in this way complainant was hiring the services of the opposite parties and as such she is the consumer of the opposite parties. It was pleaded that on 28.04.2016 opposite parties had issued a bill to the complainant amounting to Rs.17,600/- in which they had raised a demand of Rs.12,629/- as sundry charges which was illegal, null & void and was not binding upon the rights of the complainant and there was nothing outstanding against her as she had paid the entire previous bills which is evident from the receipt dated 19.08.2014. It was further pleaded that after receiving the impugned bill complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and requested them to withdraw the impugned demand raised in the bill in question but opposite party No.1 firstly putting off the matter with one pretext or the other and lastly they refused to admit the claim of the complainant and threatened her that they will disconnect her electricity supply in case of non payment of the impugned amount. It was also pleaded that due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties complainant had suffered great mental agony as well as physical harassment from the hands of the opposite parties, hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by admitting that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties and was paying the electricity bills but sundry charges had not been paid by her to the opposite parties. It was stated that opposite parties had issued bill dated 28.04.2016 to the complainant amounting to Rs.17,600/- in which they included the amount of Rs.12,629/- as sundry charges. It was denied that amount of Rs.12,629/- as sundry charges was illegal, null & void and was not binding upon the rights of the complainant and it was also denied that complainant had paid all the electricity charges to the opposite parties and nothing was outstanding against her. It was stated that complainant is consumer of the A/c No.MT-37/1041 DS and her new A/c No. was 3000749761. Old meter of the complainant was defective and the same was changed vide MCO No.66/91906/10.09.2014. It was further stated that as per the report of the Meter Reader for the month of August, 2014 meter in question was defective and in the record of the opposite parties the code of the same was shown as “D” and bills for the months of August 2014 and October 2014 were sent to the complainant on average basis as her meter was defective during the said period. It was also stated that when account of the complainant was overhauled by the audit party of the opposite parties, record of consumption of complainant pertaining to parallel months i.e. 2/13 to 10/13 & 2/14 to 10/14 was compared and it was observed that consumption of the consumer was more during 2/13 to 10/13 as compared to consumption in the months of 2/14 to 10/14. It was next stated that account of the complainant was overhauled and amount of Rs.12,623/- was demanded from her as per rules of the opposite parties and when consumption of the complainant for the period 12/14 to 4/16 was seen it was observed that the period during which meter was defective consumption of the complainant was quite less as compared to consumption in parallel months in the months from 12/14 to 4/16. It was stated that everything had been explained as how and why amount of Rs.12,629/- as sundry charges had been demanded from the complainant in bill dated 28.04.2016 amounting to Rs.17,600/- but complainant was not ready to understand it and asked the opposite parties to withdraw the amount of Rs.12,629/- from the impugned bill which was legally not possible. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with bill dated 28/04/2016 Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Vimal Dev S.D.O. Ex.OP-1, along with documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.
- Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has received a bill dated 28.04.2016 whereby he has been asked to deposit Rs.17,600/- in which the Ops had raised a demand of Rs.12,629/- as sundry charges which is totally wrong and much more than the actual consumption made by him.
- Counsel for the OP has argued that the old Meter of the complainant was replaced and the new meter was installed in place of old one. It was further submitted that the amount claimed is the difference of readings and as per Audit Party report his account was overhauled by the audit party and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. We find that counsel for the OP has failed to show if any notice was issued to the consumer before overhauling his account and demanding the impugned amount from him at the time of audit. It is regular feature in the Electricity Board that Audit Parties audit the consumer's account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party. It is understood that whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party, the SDO concerned is required to check the report but in practice the penalty is imposed without any cross checking by the SDO concerned. Before imposing penalty etc., notice is required to be given to consumer to explain his position. The requirement of law is that proper prescribed procedure is to be followed and before imposing penalty on the consumer notice is required to be issued to the consumer. It should be ensured that seven days is given to the consumer before imposing penalty in such cases In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajji Bai 2009(1)CLT 526 it has been held by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Para 5 of the order which states that:
“Admittedly, in this case demand has been made by the opposite parties on the basis of objection raised by the Audit party. The opposite parties have placed on record the documents containing estimate of the additional demand made Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6. It is clear from the material placed on record that the opposite parties have not cared to follow the relevant instructions contained in Para Nos.2 and 3 of the Sales Circular No.27/96 which read as under:
“It is regular feature in the Electricity Board that Audit Parties audit the consumer's account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party. It is understood that whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party, the SDO concerned is required to check the report but in practice the penalty is imposed without any cross checking by the SDO concerned. Before imposing penalty etc., notice is required to be given to consumer to explain his position.
“The requirement of law is that proper prescribed procedure is to be followed and before imposing penalty on the consumer notice is required to be issued to the consumer. It should be ensured that seven days is given to the consumer before imposing penalty in such cases”.
“The above instructions leave no manner of doubt that the opposite parties were duty bound to supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the above stated requirement which the opposite parties have not complied with in this case”.
10. We further draw support from a judgment passed by our own Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh, in a case reported in 2004(1) CPC 567 (PSEB Vs. Kuldip Singh) para 4 of the order of which is as follows.
“No notice was given to the complainant by the audit party before giving the report and the report is one sided. We all, thus of the opinion that OP has no lawful right to recover the amount of Rs.16,140/- and Rs.1640/- from the complainant. The complainant paid the amount only under threat of disconnection. Hence, he is entitled to refund the amount. The point is decided accordingly”.
11. So from the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down in the above cited authorities, it is clear that before over-hauling the account or demanding any amount on account of audit objection, notice is required to be given to the consumer. In the present case no such notice is proved to have been given to the complainant before overhauling his account and raising impugned demand on the basis of objections of the audit party. Consequently, the impugned demand cannot be held to be legal and valid.
12. In view of the above discussion, complaint is partly accepted and the impugned demand of Rs.12,629/- vide Bill dated 28.04.2016 is set-aside. Amount if deposited by the complainant be refunded forthwith besides payment of Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The compliance be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aggregate amount from the date of order till realization and proceedings u/s 27 CPA shall be initiated against the OP.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
SEPT. 14, 2016 Member.
*YP*
