DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB. 

 

Complaint Case No : CC/16/2023

Date of Institution : 15.02.2023

Date of Decision : 24.04.2024

Lalit Mohan aged 42 years S/o Jagdish Rai R/o Model Town, Tapa-148108, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala-148101. 

                   …Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala-147001 through its Chairman.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Tapa-1, Tapa-148108, Barnala.

                …Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Present: Sh. Paramjeet Singh Adv counsel for complainant. Sh. SK Kotia Adv counsel for opposite parties.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Jot Naranjan Singh Gill : President

2. Smt Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY URMILA KUMARI MEMBER):

    The complainant namely Lalit Mohan has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the the Consumer Protection Act against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala & another. (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).  

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide electricity connection bearing Account No. 3007444787 which is running in the name of his father Jagdish Rai and complainant is paying bills regularly to the opposite parties. The said electricity connection is running in the cattle feed factory of the complainant at Tapa and complainant took the said factory on lease from Jagdish Rai vide lease deed No. 2064 dated 30.1.2015 registered at the office of Sub Registrar, Tapa and complainant is running the said cattle feed factory for earning his livelihood and except this the complainant does not have any other source of income. 

3. It is further alleged that on 13.6.2022 the officials of the opposite parties visited the factory premises of the complainant and got signed some blank papers from the complainant and opposite party No. 2 in arbitrary and illegal manner sent a recovery letter No. 1159 dated 30.6.2022 and raised an illegal demand of Rs. 1,26,950/- by mentioning that multiplier factor 2 is applicable to the account of the complainant whereas electricity bills is being paid by the complainant in terms of multiplier factor 1. It is further alleged that the status of electricity connection meter of complainant is OK and there was no any tampering or any other defect in the said electricity connection meter. It is further alleged that being a layman complainant is unable to understand the letter issued by the opposite parties and after receiving the said letter the complainant visited several times to the office of the opposite party No. 2 and requested that the demand raised by the office of the opposite parties is illegal, arbitrary and against law and facts and also requested to withdraw the same but opposite party No. 2 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and thereafter the complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 1 but the officials of the opposite party No. 1 did not hear the version of the complainant rather told to the complainant that it does not relate to them as the checking was done by the enforcement staff. 

5. It is further alleged that thereafter the opposite parties sent bill dated 13.9.2022 for an amount of Rs. 11,820/- and when complainant visited the office of the opposite parties to deposit the said bill amount then officials of the opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to deposit the bill amount from the complainant and told him to firstly deposit the bill amount alongwith above said amount of Rs. 1,26,950/- which was claimed by the opposite parties vide letter No. 1159 dated 30.6.2022 from the complainant. Then the complainant served a legal notice dated 14.10.2022 through his Advocate to the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not reply to the said notice. On 13.12.2022 the opposite parties again in the illegal and arbitrary manner sent the bill of Rs. 1,43,640/- and when complainant went to the office of the opposite party No. 2 to inquire about the above said excessive bill amount then officials of the opposite party No. 2 told to the complainant that complainant will have to deposit the bill amount of Rs. 1,43,640/- in all respects otherwise the electricity connection of the complainant will be disconnected immediately. The complainant was always ready and willing and still ready and willing to deposit the actual bill amount as per the electricity consumption and complainant requested to the official of the opposite parties time and again to allow the complainant to deposit the actual bill amount as per the electricity consumption but the officials of the opposite parties did not hear the version and did not pay any heed toward the request of the complainant and said act and conduct of the opposite parties falls under the definition of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.- 

1) The opposite parties are liable to withdraw all the illegal demands raised in the bill Annexure C-3 and recovery letter dated 30.6.2022 Annexure C-4 and serve bills based on actual consumption.

2) To pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on account of  mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

4) Any other relief, which this Commission may deems fit. 

6. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite parties appeared and filed written version by taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. The connection was applied and taken by Jagdish Rai owner of the cattle feed factory till today Jagdish Rai is the consumer of the opposite parties. The letter No. 1159 dated 30.6.2022 was served upon Jagdish Rai  who is consumer of the electricity and paying the consumption bills. So the complainant is not the consumer and estopped from filing the present complaint and complaint is not maintainable in the present form and liable to be dismissed. The complainant concealed material facts so also present complaint is not maintainable. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his act and conduct. The complainant dragged the opposite parties into unwanted litigation and not filed the complaint with clean hands. The opposite parties served the letter No. 1159 dated 30.6.2022 for the consumption of electricity consumed by the consumer Jagdish Rai so the consumer is bound to pay the consumption charges as mentioned in the letter. The complainant filed the complaint with malafide intention against law and facts just to harass and pressurize the opposite parties so the opposite parties are entitled to special costs of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 35-A of CPC against the complainant.

7. On merits, it is denied that the complainant is consumer of the opposite parties vide electricity connection bearing Account No. 30007444787 which is running in the name of father of complainant Jagdish Rai and complainant is paying electricity bills regularly to the opposite parties. It is clearly mentioned by the complainant that the connection is running in the name of Jagdish Rai and complainant is consumer of the PSPCL, these facts are self contradictory. It is also denied that the said electric connection is running in the cattle feed factory of the complainant at Tapa and complainant took the said cattle feed factory on lease from Jagdish Rai vide lease deed No. 2064 dated 30.1.2025 registered with the office of Sub Registrar, Tapa and complainant is running the said factory for earning his livelihood and except this he do not have any other source of income. Till today no information was given by the complainant or the consumer Jagdish Rai to the PSPCL orally or in written and the alleged lease deed have not been submitted to the PSPCL so the complainant is not the consumer of the PSPCL. 

8. It is further submitted that it is compulsory as per conditions of supply as under.-

“30.3 In the event of death of a consumer, the heirs may apply in form PCL-TOT for the connection to be transferred in the name of one of the heirs. The application will be accompanied by the following documents;- 

a. Death Certificate.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f. In case the transfer of the connection is not obtained within 6 months of the death of a consumer, the PSPCL will issue notice requiring that any of the heirs submit an application for transfer of the connection within 15 days of the service of notice. The connection is liable to be disconnected in case no application is submitted to the PSPCL within the period indicated in the notice.

AND

41.1 A consumer will not, without the consent in writing of the Board, assign, transfer or part with the benefit of the agreement for obtaining a connection. The consumer will also not in any manner part with or create any partial or separate interest except in the event of;- a) Change in partnership, (after supplying a certified copy of the new partnership deed and execution of a new agreement). b) Change in the name of a company, (after supplying a certified copy of the new Memorandum of Association/ Articles of Association alongwith supporting documents and execution of a new agreement).

In view of the conditions of supply complainant is not fall under the definition of consumer and he has no right to file the present complaint so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9. It is denied that officials of the opposite parties visited the factory premises of the complainant and got signed some blank papers from the complainant and opposite party No. 2 in arbitrary and illegal manner sent a recovery letter No. 1159 dated 30.6.2022 and raised an illegal demand of Rs. 1,26,950/- by mentioning that the multiplier factor '2' is applicable to the account of the complainant whereas electricity bill is being paid by the complainant in terms of multiplier factor '1'. It is also denied that the status of electricity connection meter of the complainant is OK and there was no any tempering or any other defect in the said electricity connection meter. It is submitted that consumer Jagdish Rai who was holder of MS Connection No. MS-62/0144 with load 38.200 decreased his load 19.950 on 21.3.2016 and also submitted a request with the prayer that we decreased the load of account No. MS-62/0144 vide receipt No. 148/48703 dated 21.3.2016 and our connection may be remained as HT connection. As per request of consumer the PSPCL decreased the load vide service job order No. 117/123 dated 18.5.2016 and connection was running with multiplier '2'. Due to decrease of load the advise was sent to the computer, the computer changed multiplier '1' due to decrease of load instead of multiplier '2' because the connection of the consumer remained HT.

10. It is further submitted that the opposite parties checked the said connection on 12.6.2022 at the site and found that the said connection was checked vide SDO (OP) Tapa No. 1 letter No. 1122 dated 9.6.2022. The connection of the consumer Karan Industry (Feed Factory) is installed in SP category. The DDL cannot done due to non supply of electricity and non availability of battery back up of meter. After breaking the seal of CT PT chamber it was found that the door of CT BT chamber was come outside and R Phase of PT damaged. The three leads coming to PT 'S are broken due to flash. The CTPT was eligible for replacement and be replaced. The suitable meter be installed as per the load of the consumer. The meter which was replaced and CT PT unit seal packed and sent to the ME Lab for further action. After checking the electricity bill of consumer the bill is shown as overall multiple whereas metering unit is MF '2' which will be inquired at office level and take action as per instructions of department. The information be sent to this office after taking action as per above instructions. 

11. That as per the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 2018:- 57. Where accuracy of the meter is not involved and it is a case of application of wrong multiplication factor, the accounts shall be overhauled for a period this mistake continue. The account of the overhauled w.e.f. 6.8.2018 to 26.6.022. As per ENF. Checking No. 06/188 dated 13.6.2022 Multiplier factor is '2' But in system MF was '1' w.e.f. 11.4.2018 Thus consumer paid for one half. The actual consumption as per PE MF-2, Now, amount was charged for another half to the tune of Rs. 1,26,950/-. In this regard a letter No. 1159 was issued by the Sub Division Tapa-1 to the consumer Sh. Jagdish Rai son of Sadhu Ram Tajo Road, Tapa on 30.6.2022 vide registered post through the official of the opposite parties which was received by the consumer and after received the letter the consumer visited the office where the officials of the opposite parties explained in regard to the letter checking and multiple factors but the consumer put the original notice in the office and ran away. That the opposite parties sent the above mentioned letter through officials of the opposite parties namely Lakhvir Singh but consumer refused to sign the same so that the Lakhvir Singh employee of the opposite parties prepared a report in this regard on 25.7.2022 and submitted to the Sub Division Tapa No. 1. It is submitted that the said alleged amount is a consumption amount and not for any penalty, damage, theft etc so the consumer is bound to pay the consumption charges which is difference between the multiple factor '2' and '1' so the opposite parties are entitled to recover the said amount and the consumed is bound to pay the same without any objection. It is submitted that consumer visited the office where the officials of the opposite parties explained the facts and advise to deposit the said amount which is only consumption charges which is difference for the multiple factor '2' and '1'. The consumer accepted the facts and assured that he will be deposit the said amount within a short period and with a request not to disconnect the connection of the consumer and on the assurance of the consumer the opposite parties did not disconnect the said connection but now the consumer want to get the undue benefit by filing this consumer complaint through unauthorized person Lalit Kumar who have no right to file the present complaint. Rest of the allegations of the complainant are denied by the opposite parties and lastly prayed for the dismissal of present complaint with costs. 

12. In support of his complaint, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 30.9.2022 Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 13.12.2022 Ex.C-3, copy of letter No. 1159 dated 30.6.2022 Ex.C-4, copy of lease deed Ex.C-5, copy of jamabandi Ex.C-6, copy of legal notice dated 14.10.2022 Ex.C-7, postal receipts dated 14.10.2022 Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant. 

13. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Rajinder Singh SDE Ex.O.Ps-1, copy of letter No. 1159/30.06.2022 Ex.O.Ps-2, copy of account number Ex.O.Ps-3, copy of electricity supply instructions manual Ex.OPs-4, copy of letter to SDO Ex.OPs-5, copy of SJO Ex.OPs-6, copy of electricity manual Ex.OPs-7, copy of checking report Ex.OPs-8, copies of ledger Ex.OPs-9 to Ex.OPs-11 and closed the evidence.    

14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file.

15. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is running a cattle feed factory to earn his livelihood. The electric connection in the factory bearing Account No. 30007444787 is in the name of the father of the complainant Sh. Jagdish Rai. The complainant took this cattle feed factory on lease from his father vide lease deed No. 2064 dated 30.1.2015, registered at the office of Sub Registrar, Tapa (Ex.C-5). He is paying the electricity bills regularly and nothing is due towards him. The status of electricity meter connection is OK and there is no tempering and any other defect in the electricity connection meter.

16. On 13.6.2022 officials of the opposite party No. 2 visited the factory premises and got signed some blank papers. After that opposite party No. 2 sent a recovery letter No. 1159 dated 30.6.2022 and raised a demand of Rs. 1,26,950/- by mentioning that multiplier factor '2' is applicable to the account of the complainant and electricity bills are paid by the complainant in terms of multiplier factor '1' (Ex.C-4). The complainant visited several times to the office of opposite party No. 2 and requested that the demand raised by the opposite parties is illegal, arbitrary and against law and facts and requested to withdraw the same but opposite party No. 2 did not pay any heed towards the request of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 1 and repeated the above said entire version but the officials of the opposite party No. 1 did not hear the version of the complainant. They told the complainant that it does not relate to them as the checking was done by the enforcement staff.

17. Thereafter, opposite parties sent bill dated 13.9.2022 for an amount of Rs. 11,820/- (Ex.C-2). When complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 to deposit the said bill amount then officials of the opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to deposit the bill amount from the complainant and told him to deposit this bill amount alongwith the above said amount of Rs. 1,26,950/- which was claimed by the opposite parties vide letter No. 1159 dated 30.6.2022 from the complainant.

18. On 13.12.2022 the opposite parties again sent the bill of Rs. 1,43,640/- (Ex.C-3) and when the complainant inquired about the above said excessive bill amount then the officials of the opposite party No. 2 told that the complainant will have to deposit the bill amount of Rs. 1,43,640/- in all respects otherwise the electricity connection of the complainant will be disconnected immediately.

19. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the consumer Jagdish Rai who was the holder of the MS connection No. MS-62/0144 with load 38.200 decreased the load to 19.950 on dated 21.3.2016 and also submitted a request with the prayer that the load of connection No. MS-62/0144 was decreased vide receipt No. 148/48703 dated 21.3.2016 but the connection should be kept HT (Ex.OPs-5). As per the request of consumer the PSPCL decreased the load vide service job order No. 117/123 dated 18.5.2016 (Ex.OPs-6) and connection was running with multiplier factor '2'. Due to decreased load the advise was sent to the computer, the computer changed multiplier factor '1' due to decreased load instead of multiplier factor '2', because the connection of the consumer remained HT. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that the said connection was checked on 13.6.2022 at  site vide letter No. 1122 dated 9.6.2022 of SDO (OP), Tapa No. 1(Ex.OPs-8). The connection was of SP category and its metering is of HT.

20. As per ENF checking No. 06/188 dated 13.6.2022 MF is '2' but in system MF is '1' w.e.f. 11.4.2018. Thus, the consumer was paying one half of the actual consumption as per PE MF-2. Now the amount was charged for the other half to the tune of Rs. 1,26,950/-. In this regard a letter No. 1159 was issued by S.D., Tapa-1 to Sh. Jagdish Rai son of Sh. Sadhu Ram, Tajo Road, Tapa on dated 30.6.2022 by registered post which was received by the consumer (Ex.OPs-2). After that the consumer visited the office of the opposite parties where the officials of the opposite parties explained in regard to the letter, checking and multiplier factor but the consumer put the original letter in the office and ran away.

21. The opposite parties sent the above mentioned letter through the official of the opposite parties namely Lakhvir Singh but the consumer refused to sign the same. So, Lakhvir Singh employee of the opposite parties prepared a report in this regard on dated 25.7.2022 and submitted to the Sub Division, Tapa No. 1 (Ex.OPs-2). 

22. As per the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 2018:-

57. Where accuracy of the meter is not involved and it is a case of application of wrong multiplication factor, the accounts shall be overhauled for a period this mistake continued (Ex.OPs-7).

The account of the consumer was overhauled w.e.f. 6.8.2018 to 26.6.2022 (Ex.OPs-3). So the above said alleged amount is a consumption amount and not for any penalty, damage, theft etc. Hence, the consumer is bound to pay the consumption charges which is difference between multiplier factor '2' and '1'. So, the opposite parties are entitled to recover the above said amount and consumer is bound to pay the same without any objection.

23. After going through the file and hearing the arguments of the learned counsels the Commission has come to the conclusion that on the request of the father of complainant Sh. Jagdish Rai the load was decreased from 38.200 to 19.950 but metering was kept on HT and  the  connection was running with the multiplier factor '2'. Due to decreased load, advise was sent to the computer. The computer changed multiplier factor '1' due to decrease of load. The multiplier factor should be '2' as the connection of the consumer remained HT. The connection of the complainant was checked by the opposite parties on 13.6.2022 at site vide letter No. 1122 dated 9.6.2022 of SDO (OP), Tapa No. 1.The connection was of SP category and its metering was on HT. After checking the energy bill of the consumer it was found that the bill was showing overall multiplier '1' but the MF of metering unit was '2'. So the consumer was paying half of the actual consumption. The amount charged for the tune of Rs. 1,26,950/- is the other half. This amount is a consumption amount and not for any penalty, damage, theft etc. 

24. As per the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual 2018:-

57. Where accuracy of the meter is not involved and it is a case of application of wrong multiplication factor, the accounts shall be overhauled for a period this mistake continued.

So, the above amount was payable by the complainant.

25. From the above discussion, it is clear that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed. The opposite parties are directed to adjust the amount, if any, paid by the complainant in advance, in future bills. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

                      24th Day of April 2024

 

 

        (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

            President

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member