BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.237 of 2014

Date of Instt. 18.7.2014

Date of Decision :02.01.2015

Charanjit Singh aged about 55 years son of Late S.Kuldip Singh R/o Attari House, Village Dhilwan, Jalandhar Cantt.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Birring Sub Division, Jalandhar City.

3. The Asstt. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Birring Sub Division, Jalandhar City.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.IS Bhatia Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.DR Seth Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties and has got installed electricity connection No.J63160533W which is installed in the residential premises belonging to the complainant. The connection is being used for residential purpose only. The complainant has been regularly making the payments of the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties from time to time in respect of electricity consumed by the complainant and no bill is outstanding against the complainant. The average billing in respect of the connection is Rs.12,000/- to Rs.18,000/-. The electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant was changed in the absence of the complainant. The complainant had lodged a complaint to this effect on 13.3.2014. The complainant was shocked to receive the memo No.1154 dated 4.7.2014 whereby the complainant has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs.4,15,472/- payable within 15 days from the date of the issue of the said demand notice failing which the connection will be disconnected. The complainant is not liable to pay the exorbitant amount of Rs.4,15,472/- as the complainant has been regularly paying the monthly bills and there have been no arrears of electricity consumption charges. The meter was changed in the absence of the complainant and no notice regarding the testing of the old meter in the Lab was ever issued to the complainant. As per law it is mandatory that if any meter is to be changed, the meter has to be removed and installed in the presence of the consumer. Old meter has to be packed and checked in the Lab in the presence of the consumer. No show cause notice has been served on the complainant before imposing the impugned illegal demand. The impugned demand is illegal, null and void, arbitrary, malafide, not legally sustainable and not binding on the complaint. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the demand of Rs.4,15,472/- raised vide memo No.1154 dated 4.7.2014 and not to disconnect his electrical connection. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the present complaint is not maintainable as the charges are levelled by the internal audit of the opposite parties on account of 'F' code with effect from Jan/2014 to April/2014 and 'C' code during May/2014 to overhaul the billings of actual units consumption and pointed out the less charged amounts vide audit report memo no.211 dated 11.6.2014. As such there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite parties and the charges levelled are rightly and legally charged as per rules, regulations and instructions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Moreover the complainant has not deposited any amount from the disputed amount of Rs.4,15,472/-. The meter was challenged by the complainant with Suvidha Centre which was changed vide Meter Change Order(MCO), No.063/60624 dated 13.3.2014 and effected on 13.5.2014 and in the meanwhile the electric connection account No.T.16/533, F.T.-38/1497(D.S) having sanctioned load of 10.47 KW in the name of the complainant was checked by the internal audit of the opposite parties and the charges were levelled on account of 'F' code with effect from Jan/2014 to April/2014 and 'C' code during May/2014 to overhaul the billing of actual Units Consumption and pointed out the less charged amounts vide its audit report memo No.211, dated 11.6.2014. The replaced meter was sent to the M.E.Lab in routine for further checking and it was checked in the M.E.Lab on 25.7.2014, which was declared as O.K. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to C12 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.OP6 alongwith copies of documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O5 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsels for the parties.

6. The impugned memo No.1154 dated 4.7.2014 vide which the demand of Rs.4,15,472/- was raised by the opposite parties is Ex.C1 on record. From the perusal of this memo it is evident that the demand has been raised on the basis of report of audit party only. Before raising the impugned demand on the basis of audit report, no show cause notice of personal hearing was given to the complainant/consumer. Simply raising the demand on the basis of audit report without hearing the consumer is against the principles of natural justice.

7. In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajji Bai 2009 (1) CLT page 526, it has been held by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in para 5 of the orders that:-

"The learned counsel representing the appellants while assailing the order of the District Forum dated 12.12.2007 mainly contended that the District Forum overlooked the factual position brought on record and for that reason the order of the District Forum deserved to be set aside. There is hardly any force in the submission made. Accordingly, 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.R1 to Ex.R6. 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 concern 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 the 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."

8. The ratio of above cited authority is applicable on the facts of the present case. In the present case before raising the impugned demand vide above said memo Ex.C1, no notice of personal hearing was issued to the complainant/consumer. The opposite parties were required to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the complainant to show cause against the demand raised by the audit party. So in our opinion the impugned demand which has been simply raised on the basis of audit report without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the complainant is against principles of natural justice and thus illegal.

9. In view of above discussion, the complaint is accepted and impugned demand of Rs.4,15,472/- raised by opposite parties vide memo No.1154 dated 4.7.2014 Ex.C1 is set aside. However, the opposite parties are at liberty to issue fresh notice to the complainant/consumer on the basis of audit report and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to him may raise fresh demand, if need be, as per rules and regulations. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

02.01.2015 Member President