| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR. Complaint No.100 of 2017 Date of Instt. 06.04.2017 Date of Decision:16.03.2021 Tara Chand Mehta aged 82 years S/o Sh.Sohan Lal Mehta, R/o 71-72, Dada Colony, Jalandhar City. ..........Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, previously known as Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, previously known as Punjab State Electricity Board, East Commercial Sub Division, Pathankot Bye Pass Chowk, Jalandhar City through its Sub Divisional Officer.
….….. Opposite Parties Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act. Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh, President Smt. Jyotsna, Member COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES; For complainant : Sh. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate For OPs : Sh. K. L. Dua, Advocate Order Kuljit Singh,President The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is a consumer of the electricity connection No.J61DC530828W, Contract A/c No.3001298214 installed at the premises of complainant where one watchman is residing. A bill dated 17.02.2016 has been received by complainant, in which the OPs have claimed Rs.22,740/- which includes Rs.445/- as current charges, Rs.10,012/- as sundry charges, Rs.3583/- as arrears of current years, Rs.6101/- as arrears of previous year and Rs.120/- as adjustment, Rs.23/- towards infrastructure Development Cess and Rs.24/- towards rents, total amounting to Rs.22,739/- rounded to Rs.22,740/-. The said bill was not as per actual consumption and was very exorbitant, so the complainant approached to OPs and sought details but the OPs refused to provide the same. The OPs asked that complainant has to pay the said demanded amount immediately as these charges have been levied by their Audit Department and in case these charges are not paid by complainant, the electricity connection will be disconnected and the meter will be removed. Audit department of Ops never called the complainant nor any notice was sent to complainant nor notice was received by complainant from OP or audit department of OPs. The demand raised by OPs is illegal, null and void. Previously, also a sum of Rs.10,000/- was levied by Ops but in order to avoid any dispute, a sum of Rs.4,000/- was paid by complainant and it was told by the OPs that no demand with regard to the balance amount shall be raised but now this bill has been raised by Ops claiming exorbitant amount by mentioning the alleged arrears of current year and previous year and sundry charges without giving any details. Previously a complaint under Section 154 of Electricity Act, 2003 was filed before the court of District Judge, Jalandhar for declaration that the alleged demand raised by OP No.2 vide bill in question is illegal. In the said complaint OP given reply that there was no case of theft rather it is a case of audit overhauling, as there was no cause of theft, so complainant said complaint was allowed to withdrawn. Lastly prayer has been made that the OPs be directed to act in accordance with law and not to raise illegal demand on the bill dated 17.02.2016 amount to Rs.22,740/-. Further Rs.50,000/- claimed as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as legal expenses. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction. No allegation of negligence or deficiency in service of any type and no allegation of illegal trade practice has been attributed; complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not disclosed true facts. The payment of ordinary charges for the consumption of electricity which has not been paid by complainant has been included in present bill. The amount has also been included in the present bill as per the instructions of Audit Party of OPs. The amount in question was liable to be paid by complainant; complainant has no come to this Forum with clean hands; no cause of action arisen to the complainant to file the present false and frivolous complaint. On merits, installation of electricity connection is admitted. As the bills were not paid regularly, so the arrears of amounts were outstanding which were not paid by complainant and have been included in present bill, being arrears of current year and arrears of previous year. It is admitted that bill dated 17.02.2016 has been claimed including said charges. The account of the complainant was checked by audit party and it was found that the bills have not been correctly sent to the complainant. So the account of the complainant was overhauled by audit party by way of half margin formula and the part of the amount of bill was raised on that account. The amount is also included in the bill which was not paid by complainant out of earlier bills and amount was outstanding against the complainant. It is admitted that complainant approached to OP-2 and requested for the details. But the complainant was attended very nicely and OP-2 was supplied the detailed information alongwith statement prepared in respect of amount charged. He was told that his bill used to very less as per consumption data, so his account was checked and overhauled, as compared to consumption of previous year of same period and amount was charged. But complainant was not satisfied. It is law of land that in case the legal demanded amount is not paid within stipulated period then the connection is liable to be disconnected. The audit party of OP checks each and every account of consumer of electricity and if there is any doubt or mistake then the same is checked and is corrected and the amount if any is due is claimed from concerned consumer. There is no provision of law for sending any notice by the audit party before checking any account of consumer, nor there is any provision of law that the notice must be sent by OP, if the any amount of the arrear is to be included in the bill or if any amount is to be added which was less charged earlier. The demand raised in the present is legal and payable by complainant. It is admitted that previous claim U/s 154 of Electricity Act, 2003 and filed and withdrawn. Other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of present complaint with costs. In order to prove his respective version, the counsel for the complainant produced on the file his respective evidence. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely. In nutshell, the complainant is consumer of the OPs and having electric meter in his premises is not denied by the OPs. Rather, the OPs have also admitted that the bill of disputed amount of Rs.22,740/- has been issued to the complainant. Now question remains whether the said bill whereby OPs demanded Rs.22740/- is legal, valid and according to electricity rules or not. It is vehemently contended by counsel for the OPs that demand has been put forth on the basis of the internal audit report of the OP Department. Reliance for this purpose is placed on documents Ex OP-1 to Ex OP-3 each. There is nothing on the record to suggest that before claiming the amount on the basis of internal audit report, a separate show cause notice giving details of the claimed amount through internal audit report, was given to the complainant. So the complainant virtually has been called upon to pay the amount of sundry charges or the demanded amount of Rs.22,740/- without affording him any opportunity of hearing. Present is a case in which demand of hefty amount put forth not only in violation of principles of natural justice, but even in violation of rules and regulations of PSPCL itself. As per the law laid down in case titled as M/s Kundan Mill Board and Paper Mills and another versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others, 2014(2) Civil Court Cases-044 (Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court) (DB), any internal audit objection is only an opinion and the same by itself will not be a justification for raising of supplementary demand in initial bill. Ratio of this case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case because here internal audit report made the basis for claiming the sundry charges of hefty amount through bill in dispute itself. No copy of this internal audit report shown to be sent to the complainant and nor the details of the demanded sundry charges ever supplied to the complainant and further keeping in view the fact that the complainant was not divulged of the reasons of adding amount of Rs.22,740/- as aforesaid, it has to be held that demand put forth in an arbitrary and illegal manner in violation of principles of natural justice. Even as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in case of Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Daljit Singh 2007(2) CLT-163, the rules of natural justice require that an opportunity of hearing must be given to the consumer, while raising demand on the basis of assessment done by the officials of PSPCL on the basis of the report of the ME Lab. That opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the complainant in this case as aforesaid and as such violation of principles of natural justice is committed by the OPs while putting forth demand of Rs.22,740/-. Perusal of regulation 30.1.2 reveals that charges levied as arrears for correcting the mistake not to be clubbed with the current electricity bill. Rather, arrear bill- cum- notice has to be provided separately by giving brief details of the nature and period of arrears along with calculation details of such arrears. Such bill- cum- notice not claimed or shown to be sent by the OPs to the complainant before putting forth the demand in question and as such also violation of regulation 30.1.2 committed by the Ops. As per Instructions 93.1 contained in Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, First Edition updated till 31.03.2011 by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, Patiala, in case a bill is to be raised on account of defect in the metering equipment or unauthorized use of electricity etc, then separate bill has to be issued containing complete details of the charges. Copy -5- of the relevant instructions under which the charges have been levied, has also to be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of the cases by Consumer Forums. No such separate bill shown to be sent to the complainant and nor copy of the relevant instructions under which charges to be levied, shown to be sent to the complainant and as such, violation of this rule also committed by the OPs while putting forth the demand in question through a composite current bill referred above. Even regulation 124.1 of Electricity Supply Instructions provides that when an amount to be charged from the consumer as arrears on account of under assessment or for correction of the records or for rectification of mistake, then separate bill should be issued by giving complete details of the levied charges. This regulation 124.1 specifically prohibits the charges being clubbed in the current bill of the consumer. However, impugned amount has been clubbed in the current bill and as such, violation of this regulation 124.1 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007 also is there. Latest Regulations 30.1.2 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007 (effective from 1.1.2015) (as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No. PSERC/Secy./Reg 97 dated November 5, 2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette (Extra) dated November 5, 2014) reads as under:-“30.01.2:- The bill cum notice for arrears in the case of under assessment or the charges levied as a result of checking etc, shall be initially tendered separately and shall not be clubbed with the current electricity bill. The arrear bill cum notice would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrears along with calculation details of such arrears. If the arrears are not cleared by the consumer, such arrears shall be indicated regularly in the subsequent electricity bills. However, in case arrear bill is included in the current energy bill at the first instance, the distribution licensee shall not be entitled to take any punitive action against the consumer for non-payment of such arrear amount along with the current energy bill”. Consumer Fora/Commission has fullest jurisdiction to settle the dispute relating to excessive billing, in case, the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulation as well as principles of natural justice, as per law laid down in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and another Vs. MD. Imtiyaz-IV (2014) CPJ-25 (Maghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). So, jurisdiction of this Fora is not barred, particularly when the demand has been raised in violation of principles of natural justice and rules and regulations of the OPs itself because separate bill had not been issued and nor show cause notice shown to be issued for calling upon the complainant to explain as to why the impugned amount be not recovered from him. So looking from all angles, demand of Rs.22,740/- being raised in violation of rules and regulations of PSPCL and principles of natural justice, liable to be quashed but with rider that in case the OPs to charge any amount of sundry charges or arrears, then a separate show cause notice had to be issued by them to the complainant for giving him an opportunity of hearing. As by hefty demand of Rs.22,740/- the complainant was put to lot of mental tension and agony and even -6- dragged in this litigation and as such complainant entitled for compensation for mental tension and agony and also to litigation expenses. Accordingly, the bill dated 17.02.2016 for recovery of Rs.22740/- is hereby set aside and the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted. Further, the OPs are liberty to recover only consumption charges from the complainant for said period and further the OPs are directed to pay compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2000/-. The above said entire compliance be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION: 16thDay of March 2021
(Kuljit Singh) President (Jyotsna) Member | |
