DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  708

                                                Instituted on:    21.12.2016

                                                Decided on:       03.05.2017

Inder Singh son of Sh. Dalip Singh, resident of Village Khurani, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                …Complainant

                                Versus

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

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer (SDO), PSPC Ltd., Sub Urban Sub Division, Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant  :               Shri Inderpal Singh, Adv.

For Ops                    :               Ms.Rajni Gandhi, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Inder Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is the consumer of the Ops vide domestic electricity connection number S46KR310039Y and the complainant has been paying the bills regularly to the OPs.

2.             In the present case, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving the bill dated 02.12.2016, whereby an amount of Rs.38,510/- has been charged as sundry charges without mentioning any reason. Further case of the complainant is that though he approached the OPs to withdraw the disputed demand, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw/quash the demand of sundry charges of Rs.38,510/- raised through bill dated 2.12.2016 and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

3.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum and that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs under the connection in question. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  It is stated further that the bill dated 2.12.2016 has rightly been issued as the demand is according to the actual consumption of electricity.  It is further stated that the meter of the complainant was changed  in the month of September, 2015 and the complainant was charged on average basis from 26.5.2015 to 1.10.2015 for 128 days, but in the bill dated 6.12.2016 the meter status was OK and the difference between 26.5.2015 to 29.11.2016  was charged as per the actual consumption, as such the demand of Rs.38510/- is said to be genuine one as the same was charged after overhauling the account of the complainant.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 copies of bills and receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-11 copies of bills, Ex.OP-12 copy of adjustment, Ex.OP-13 copy of ME lab report, Ex.OP-14 copy of register, Ex.OP-15 copy of receipt and closed evidence.

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops vide domestic connection in question.  In the present case, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OPs have raised a demand of Rs.38,510/- as sundry charges in the bill dated 2.12.2016 without mentioning any reason and without issuing any prior notice to the complainant and has prayed for withdrawal of the same.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that the amount of Rs.38,510/- has been demanded on account of actual consumption charges and the same has been raised after overhauling the account of the complainant and has lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

7.             After perusal of the file and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the Ops are not entitled to raise such a demand in the current consumption bill dated 02.12.2016 in view of Regulation number 124.1 of the Sales Regulations, which provides as under:-

“124.1: There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years of otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/load or demand surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/detected by the authorised officers either owing to negligence of the Board 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 should be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges should not be clubbed in the current bill of the consumer.”  In these circumstances and in view of Sales Regulation number 124.1 of the Sales Regulations of the OPs, we find that it is not open for them to raise the demand in question in such a manner as raised by the Ops in the bill dated 02.12.2016 in the present case.   The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited PSEB versus Hardeep Singh 2010(2) CLT 259 (Punjab State Commission), wherein it has been held that the OPs are required to raise such a demand through a separate detailed notice as required by Regulation No.124.1 and adding of such a demand in the bill as sundry charges is a violation of regulations.   In such circumstances, we feel that the OPs are not only negligent but also are deficient in rendering service towards the complainant by inserting such a huge amount in the bill dated 02.12.2016 of the complainant without ascertaining any reasons for the same. Further there is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why if any consumption charges were due against the complainant, then why the same were not recovered from the complainant.

8.             In view of the above discussion and legal position, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the demand of Rs.38,510/- raised through bill dated 02.12.2016. The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 3, 2017.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                         Member