Punjab

Sangrur

CC/586/2017

Shanta Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rohit Jain

15 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    586

                                                Instituted on:      02.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       15.05.2018

 

Shanta Jain wife of Late Sh. Gian Chand, resident of Narindra Colony, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     AEE, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, City II, Maler, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Shanta Jain, 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 the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining one domestic electricity connection bearing account number L33GC330041k  at his residence with a sanctioned load of 25 KW and the complainant is paying the bills regularly to the OPs. Further case of the complainant is that she received a bill dated 25.2.2015 in March, 2015 vide which an amount of Rs.37,970/- was demanded on account of consumption of 4972 units, as such the complainant approached the OPs stating that she never consumed such units and she is using about 500 units, as such the OPs got deposited an amount of Rs.7800/- only for 794 units.  Further case of the complainant is that she again received another bill dated 26.3.2015 whereby the Ops issued a refund of Rs.29,842/- in the bill saying that the meter is defective one.  The said meter was removed by the Ops, but the said meter was not packed and sealed as per the instructions of the OPs nor the same was checked in the presence of the complainant nor gave any intimation to the complainant about the checking of the same.  Now, the complainant is aggrieved on receiving letter number 1222 dated 18.10.2017 vide which it has been asked  to pay Rs.29,842/- as the said demand has been raised as per the report of audit party, which is said to be wrong and illegal.  Though the complainant approached the Ops so many times for withdrawal of the said letter number 1222 dated 18.10.2017 demanding an amount of Rs.29842/-, but of no avail. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to withdraw the demand of Rs.29,842/- and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.61,000/-.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint, the opposite parties have taken legal objections on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the OPs have been dragged into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.    On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the connection in question.  It is also correct that the complainant deposited Rs.7800/- only and the other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. It is admitted that the OPs issued bill dated 26.3.2015 in which inadvertently the refund of Rs.29,842/- was given to the complainant against sundry item dated 12.3.2015.  Further it is stated that the complainant did not deposit any bill challenge fee and the complainant also did not challenge the accuracy of the meter in question, so the question regarding depositing the meter challenge fee does not arise at all.  Further case of the OPs is that the account of the complainant was overhauled by the audit staff as per half margin number 34 dated 4.8.2015 and the amount of Rs.29,842/- was found chargeable from the complainant and the same was accordingly charged vide notice dated 18.10.2017. Thus, it is stated that the demand is quite genuine one and the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 affidavit and copies of bills and documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             At the outset, it is an admitted fact between the complainant and the OPs that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs under the connection in question.  It is also admitted fact of the OPs that the  officials of the OPs gave an credit adjustment of the amount of Rs.29,842/- vide bill dated 12.3.2015 and now the case of the OPs is that the said demand of Rs.29,842/- has been again raised vide notice number 1222 dated 18.10.2017 after a period of about two years and seven months.  There is no explanation from the side of the OPs that why the said demand of Rs.29,842/-was not raised against the complainant immediately or within a period of two years, as section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act provides that no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplies. Thus, the demand of Rs.29,842/- raised against the complainant after a period of about more than two years is not in accordance with law and is illegal. 

 

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended that the demand is quite genuine one and the same can be recovered from the complainant as the same relates to the consumption charges and has been charged as per the report of audit party.  To support such a contention, the learned counsel for the OPs has cited M/s. Swastic Industries versus Maharashtra State Electricity Board 1997(1) CLT 435, wherein it has been held that there is no deficiency in service in making supplementary demand for escaped billing and there may be negligence or collusion by subordinate staff in not properly recording the reading or allowing pilferage to the consumer.  But, in the present case, there are no such circumstances, as the demand due in the year March 2015 was fully in the knowledge of the opposite parties and same was not raised against the complainant thereafter.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act is fully applicable in the circumstances of the present case, as discussed above.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.29,842/- raised against the complainant vide letter dated 18.10.2017, Ex.C-2. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to records.

 

                        Pronounced.

                        May 15, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

                                 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member