BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

  Complaint No.341 of  2022

      Date of Instt. 14.09.2022

      Date of Decision: 17.05.2024

Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Kishan Chand, House No.3, Mohalla No.7, Jalandhar Cantt, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

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

2.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its S.D.O, Cantt         Commercial Sub Division, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. BKS Chhabra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for the OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the Complainant is the owner of one house situated at House No.3, Mohalla No.7, Jalandhar Cantt, Jalandhar. The complainant for his residential purpose had obtained one electricity connection bearing Account No.3002555429 (DS Tariff) from the OP. Since the installation of this electricity connection, the complainant is regularly paying the consumption charges without committing any default and no amount of any sort is left outstanding against this connection except the disputed amount under challenge. Thus, the complainant having hired the services of OP for consideration, is a Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as amended upto date and has a right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission for the redressal of his grievance by filing this complaint against the OP. 2. The complainant was shocked and surprised when he received a bill dated 8/06/2022 of an amount of Rs.1161410/- in which apart from current consumption charges of an amount of Rs.5141, an amount of Rs.11,53,773/- was added under the head Sundry Charges without disclosing any details thereof and without any prior intimation to the complainant. On receipt of the bill, the complainant went to subdivision for seeking clarification on the bill on which the OP replied that they have received certain instructions from the Audit party to charge this amount to the complainant but refuse to provide any written orders. They further corrected the bill of the complainant and asked him to pay current consumption charges which were paid by the complainant. The complainant was again surprised when he received an electricity bill dated 05/08/2022 of an amount of Rs.11,70,290/- in which apart from current consumption charges of an amount of Rs.5085/- an amount of Rs.11,46,135/- was claimed under the head Sundry Charges. The complainant again went to subdivision for seeking clarification on and for correction in the bill but he was denied any help from the OP. At this time the OP handed over one memo No.291 dated 08/04/2022 of an amount of Rs.11,54,121/- which was issued by Assistant Executive Engineer (Commercial) on the instructions of Audit party vide Half margin No.8 dated 30/03/2022 which memo is wrong, illegal and liable to set-aside and the same was never ever received by the complainant. On being asked, the officials of the OP told the complainant that as his meter was running fast/defective somewhere in the year June/July2018 and the same was replaced in October 2018. It was further alleged that the meter was alleged to be checked in the ME lab on 03/05/2021, which fact was wrong, illegal and malafide. It is worthwhile to mention here that neither the complainant received any notice to appear before the ME lab nor he or any of his representative appeared for the checking in the ME Lab in his absence. The meter of the complainant was installed outside his premises and the old meter was removed and taken away by the officials of the OP without seal and pack and it was lying in subdivision for more than two years and 9 months and suddenly one day without any prior information to the complainant, the officials checked the meter of the complainant in his absence and charged such a big amount in the billing account of the complainant under the head Sundry Charges. The complainant immediately lodged the complaint with the OP regarding the excessive, arbitrary bill but they paid no heed to his genuine requests. The complainant even asked for the detail/calculations of the amount added in the bill but he was denied any help by the officials of the OP. Ultimately, on 02/09/2022, the OP disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant. Number of complaints has been made to the higher officials of the OP regarding the non-issuance of the details of the above said bill but till date no action has been taken so far. Neither any detail has been provided nor the above said bill was withdrawn resulting into gross miscarriage of justice. The fact however remains that no such previous amount was outstanding against the complainant as the complainant is paying the consumption charges regularly. The aforesaid act amounts to a great negligence, carelessness, deficiency in service on the part of the OP 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 withdraw the bill dated 05/08/2022 of an amount of Rs.11,70290/- issued against electricity connection bearing account No.3002555429 DS Tariff which was issued on the basis of Memo No.291 dated 08/04/2022 on in alternative the same may kindly be set-aside. Further, OPs be directed to restore the electricity connection bearing Account 3002555429 DS Tariff and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience the complainant and Rs.55,000/- 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 against the Complainant to file the present Complainant against the answering OP. It is further averred that the Complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission thus is not entitled to a relief from this Commission. Bill's were sent as per the Law and is at fault of the complainant who intentionally avoiding to make the payment of the bill just for his unlawful gain, actual fact is this the meter of the consumer was challenged and changed vide memo number 100006186218 on 19-10-2018, internal audit party overhaul account of the consumer on the basis of the challan book of laboratory vide report challan no.17 final reading of the meter was 288396 but in SAP system bill was generated till reading 158396. Audit party opened the account of the consumer and as per challan number 8 dated 30/03/2022 it was directed to claimed the difference of the final reading unit by half margin. Further, bill generated of the complainant as per the rules and regulations of the PSPCL. Moreover, in case of any discrepancy which comes in the knowledge of the PSPCL, PSPCL adjust/refund the amount which is not as per rule of the PSPCL. It is further averred that the Complaint of the Complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious within the knowledge of the Complainant. It is further averred that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable under the Law, no cause of action ever accrued against the answering opposite party this complaint was just moved in order to take the benefit of law and just to delay the payment which the complainant is bound to pay for the electricity consumed by the complainant. On merits,

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by counsel for the complainant very minutely.

6.                The complainant is the consumer of the electricity as the electricity connection was installed in his house. The complainant received the bill dated 08.06.2022 for an amount of Rs.11,61,410/-, in which the current consumption charges were of Rs.5141/- and amount of Rs.11,53,773/- was added under the head ‘sundry charges’, without mentioning any details. On his request for clarification on the bill, OPs told him that as per the instructions received from the audit party, they have added the amount. The complainant has proved the bill Ex.C-2 and the payment made by him of the consumption charges Ex.C-3. He received another bill dated 05.08.2022 for an amount of Rs.11,70,290/-, in which again the actual consumption charges were of Rs.5085/-, whereas Rs.11,46,135/- were under the head ‘sundry charges’. When the complainant went to seek the clarification, instead of correcting the bill, the OP gave him the memo dated 30.03.2022 and the complainant has challenged this memo dated 30.03.2022 also. It has been alleged that as per the information, given by the OP as his meter was running fast, therefore, the meter was replaced in October, 2018 and the meter was checked in the ME Lab on 03.05.2021. The complainant has also alleged the report of ME Lab as illegal, wrong and malafide as no notice was ever received by him nor any consent was ever given by the complainant, rather the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 02.09.2022.

7.                The OP has denied all the allegations and alleged that as per the internal audit report, the account of the consumer was overhauled and as per the record, the bill was generated. Vide letter dated 30.03.2022, the complainant was rightly directed to pay the difference of the final reading unit by half margin. The bill has allegedly been generated as per the rules.

8.                Ex.C-2 shows the bill to be of Rs.11,53,773/-, which was issued on 08 June, 2022 and total amount to be paid by the complainant was Rs.11,61,410/-, out of which the complainant has paid Rs.7638/-, vide Ex.C-3 and as per Ex.C-4, the bill of amount of Rs.11,70,290/- was sent, out of that the complainant has paid Rs.8000/- vide Ex.C-5. Ex.C-6 is the letter vide which the complainant was asked to make the payment of Rs.11,54,121/- and this was the recovery notice. The OP has relied upon the report of internal audit report dated 30.03.2022 Ex.OP1/C7. Perusal of this report clearly shows that the OP has violated the instructions as the JE, who has not checked the connection of the complainant as per the instructions once in six months. On this ground, it was ordered that since there was financial loss to the department as no recovery was made from the complainant after checking, therefore, the amount be recovered after the enquiry. From this report itself, it is clear that the fault was found on the part of the OPs as they have not followed the instruction, even otherwise as per the Electricity Supply Code Manual 93.1, which reads as under:-

                   “There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed        for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment or demand /     load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the        authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL 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 etc. In all such     cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied.  

                   As per this circular, in all the such cases of burnt meter or wrong meter or defective meter, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. The OP has alleged that the meter was challenged and was replaced as the meter was running very fast.

9.                In the present case also, the amount of Rs.11,53,773/- have been added as a sundry charges in Ex.C-2 and Rs.11,46,135/- have been added as sundry charges as per Ex.C-4. Ex.C-6 has been issued on 08 June, 2022, whereas Ex.C-4 has been issued on 05 August, 2022. No detail has been given nor the reason for adding this much of amount has been given nor any separate bill has been issued nor there is any detail on the basis of which this amount has been claimed. Ex.C-6 is the demand notice of Rs.11,54,121/-, which nowhere shows that how this amount of Rs.11,54,121/- has been claimed and demanded by the OPs. It has simply been mentioned that as per the internal audit checking report, there is a difference of unit of Rs.1,29,998/- for which the amount of Rs.11,54,121/- is to be charged. It has been held by the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, in a case, titled as ‘Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & others’, 2016 (2) CLT 429, that ‘Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) Electricity connection Domestic purpose - Issuance of electricity bill by illegality adding sundry charges Complaint partly allowed - Appeal Held, no show cause notice was issued to the complainant before imposing penalty Appellants miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant Provisions of Electricity Act not followed- Deficiency in service proved - Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case- No case made out for interference.’

                   Even as per the internal audit report Ex.OP-1, the fault was found of the JE-II, who has violated the instructions. For the fault of any employee of the OPs, the complainant cannot be made liable. No show cause notice has been issued to the complainant before sending the notice to the complainant and before disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant. Even the audit report alleged by the OP, on the basis of which the impugned bills were sent never was sent to the complainant. As per law laid down by the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, on the basis of Audit Report, which was never served upon the complainant, no penalty can be imposed nor the demand can be made unless and until the consumer is given the opportunity of being heard. It was further held by the Hon’ble Haryana State Commission that consumer can always ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made. As per the pleadings of the complainant, the complainant has lodged the complaint with the OP number of times regarding the excessive and arbitrary bill, but the bill was neither clarified nor corrected nor the detail of the bill was issued to the complainant despite demand. So, the demand made by the OPs on the basis of internal audit report without giving opportunity to the complainant of being heard proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, therefore, the demand and bills are held illegal, wrong and the same are hereby set-aside. The OPs have wrongly disconnected the connection of the complainant is also illegal.

10.              In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to withdraw the bill dated 05.08.2022 for an amount of Rs.11,70,290/- issued against electricity connection bearing account No.3002555429. Further, OPs are directed to restore the electricity connection of the complainant bearing Account No.3002555429DS Tariff. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.7000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

17.05.2024         Member                          Member           President