BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.402 of 2017

Date of Instt.23.10.2017 Date of Decision:09.03.2021

Balbir Kaur W/o Sh. Baldev Singh R/o H. No.51-B, Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2. The A.E.E./P.S.P.C.L. Sub Division Maqsudan, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. Vinod Attri, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. K. L. Dua, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

Order

Kuljit Singh(President)

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is a consumer of the electricity connection No.J75PC410263M installed at the residence of the complainant and the said connection is installed in the name of Bodhi Raj. The complainant is residing with her two sons in the said property and is the actual and lawful consumer of the aforesaid connection. The OPs are engaged in providing the service of electricity for charges and there is a relationship between the parties as of consumer and of service provider. That connection of the complainant is regularly checked by the officers of the PSPCL from time to time and at least once in two months while taking the reading of consumption for issuance of energy bills and no defect has ever been pointed out. The complainant has been regularly paying the electricity bills issued to him and nothing is due from the complainant towards the OPs. That surprisingly the complainant has received one bill dated 03.08.2017 delivered to her for the said connection for 714 days for the period 20.08.2015 to 03.08.2017, wherein an illegal demand of Rs.49,911/- has been made and when the complainant approached the OPs, the OPs told the complainant that earlier they are sending the average bills for the above said period and now at present the said bill is for the period of 714 days. The complainant requested the OPs that adjust the payments made by the complainant to the OPs, but the OPs did not hear the hue and cry of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs send another bill of Rs.56,390/- for the period 03.08.2017 to 29.09.2017 to the complainant which is against the law and while sending the bill, the OP did not adjust the earlier payment made by the complainant to the OPs and the OPs threatened the complainant that if she will not make the payment of the said bill amount, the electricity connection will be disconnected. That by the said act of the OPs, the complainant has suffered a lot of mental tension and harassment and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to set-aside the illegal demand of Rs.56,390/- raised in the bill dated 29.09.2017 and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present false and frivolous complaint and the present complaint is the misuse of the process of this Forum. The false and frivolous complaint has been filed with malafide intention, just to delay the legal payment of the legal outstanding amount of the bill in respect of the electricity consumed. It is further alleged that there was bit defect in the Sap system and the changed meter could not be installed in the Sap system, so the Status of the meter was shown as F-Code and the bills on the average basis were used to be sent from 8/2015. When the meter was entered in the Sap system and the consumption was shown in the I-Roil as by the meter reader as 7745 units and 7744 units and the units of the removed meter were 1516 and 127 units and as such after adjusting the units the bill of 7879 units was prepared by the Sap system. The amount of Rs.3912/- deposited by the consumer was adjusted and the remaining bill was raised in the bill amounting to Rs.49670/-. The bill is correct and there is no defect in the same. On merits, the factum in regard to receiving the bill dated 02.08.2017 for 714 days for the period 20.08.2015 to 03.08.2017 for Rs.49,911/- is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3. In order to prove his respective version, the counsel for the complainant produced on the file his respective evidence.

4. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.

5. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the act of opposite parties in sending bill dated 03.08.2017 of Rs.49,911/- is illegal and unlawful as the complainant never indulged in any alleged use of electricity. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties argued that amount of Rs.49690/- is not illegal.

6. Before going into the merits of the case, we would like to observe here that electric connection in dispute does not stand in the name of the complainant.

Now the question for determination is whether the complainant is consumer of the OPs or not.

It is held by our own Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in 2006 (2)CPC titled as Sat Pal Versus PSEB through its Secretary reproduced as under:

xx                                   xx                xx

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (d) (i) – Consumer – Beneficiary – It is settled that a person who is staying in a house as a actual user of electricity would be a consumer being a beneficiary – In the present case electricity connection was in the name of the father of the complainant – A demand of Rs.12,370 was raised against complainant by PSEB against which District Forum was approached for necessary relief – Order of the Forum holding that complainant is not a consumer cannot be sustained – A beneficiary is also a consumer as defined in C.P. Act – Order set aside – Case remanded for fresh decision on merits.

xx                          xx                          xx

Further it is held in II (1998) CPJ 210 titled as P.K. Malhan Versus SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board reproduced as under:-

xx                                   xx                xx

“(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (d)) – Consumer – Beneficiary – Electricity – Complainant using electricity – Electricity connection in another’s name – Whether complainant is consumer being beneficiary ? (Yes).”

xx                          xx                          xx

In view of the above said legal position, the present complainant is a consumer of the OPs, hence the complaint is maintainable.

7. We are of the opinion that the impugned bill has to be quashed. We have arrived at this conclusion due to reasons enumerated as under:-

a) No show cause notice was given to the complainant on the basis of checking to explain her conduct immediately after 02.08.2017. The complainant remained unheard. Even this step was not taken by the opposite parties. Neither the opposite parties handed over the Memo of Inspection to the complainant under proper acknowledgement required under the law as per Sales Regulation No.112.5.1 and 112.5.2 which reads as under:-

112.5.1 “Memorandum of Inspection and Seizure: Results of inspection and evidence, if any seized by enforcement or operations officers shall be recorded at site in the Memorandum of Inspection and Seizure in triplicate. One copy should be retained by the Inspecting officer, the 2^nd should be sent to the AE/AAE/XEN(OPs) for placing it in the consumer’s case and taking necessary follow up action. The 3^rd copy of which should be given to the consumer or his representative available at the time of inspection under proper acknowledgement.”

112.5.2 The Memo of Inspection may be subsequently entered in a Separate register to be maintained by each Inspecting Officer. The register as mentioned above should be numbered and page marked and should invariably remain in the custody of the concerned office/official it must be ensured that it is handed over to his successor and a note to his effect is added in the handing over report.”

b) It was bounden duty of the opposite parties to comply with the above said mandatory directions. In the present case mandatory directions have not been complied with by the OPs as mentioned above as checking report has not been served upon the complainant.

8. The complainant has produced copies of bills. From perusal of above said copies of electricity bills on the record, we are of the opinion that there is huge different in the bills issued by OPs to the complainant. OPs without settling the dispute of previous bills sent another bills on average consumption not on consumption basis. OPs admitted in some paras of their written statement that “the Bill was used to be correctly. …… However, there was some defect in the Sap System.….From perusal of above said admission of OPs, it is clear that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice attributed on the part of OPs. One side OPs admitted that there was a problem in Sap system. This act of OPs proves negligence on their part. If no fault on the part of OPs, they why they agree for problem in Sap system.

9. The main question of controversy involved in this case is that the demand of excess bill of OPs is genuine or not? From perusal of entire bills issued to complainant by OPs, it is crystal clear that the OPs issued bills issued to complainant with status of Meter as OK. OPs are adamant to charge excess money unlawfully from the complainant, which is against rules and regulations of PSPCL.

10. The OPs should issue electricity bills to complainant as per his consumption consumed by her. The complainant approached office of OPs various times in this regard but OPs failed to do so. It is bounden duty of the OPs to issue the electricity bills to complainant as per his actual consumption, but this practice was not done by OPs, which is against the rules of PSPCL & Electricity Supply Instruction Manual. OPs time and again sent an exaggerated bill to her. She requested OPs many times in this regard but OPs failed to do so. Moreover, the OPs have failed to produce on record any ME Lab report for justifying its contention of sending excessive bill for 714 days. It means that the Ops have sleep for the said period of 714 days and suddenly Ops awaken up and raised demand for the said period of 714 days which is not justifiable. As such, an adverse inference drawn against Ops and the OPs are liable for the relief claimed as prayed by complainant in this complaint.

11. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and OPs are directed set aside the demand of Rs.56,390/- raised vide bill dated 29.09.2017.OPs further directed to pay Rs.2000/- to complainant as compensation and adjust amount deposited by complainant, if any, out of disputed amount, with them in future consumption bills. The OPs have no right to keep and misappropriate the public money. It must go back to the public. We, therefore, order that the OPs will deposit a sum of Rs.2000/-, the estimate rough amount, with the legal aid account of this Commission. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the order.

12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

9^thDay of March 2021

(Kuljit Singh)

President

(Jyotsna)

Member