Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/34

Sanjay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. J.K.Sharma, Adv

03 Jul 2015

ORDER

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Sanjay Kumar has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for issuance of the following directions to them:-

i)       To refund the amount of Rs.46,653/- charged from him, in excess,

ii)      To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment caused to him,

iii)     To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses

 

                                      OR

 

          To award any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit, in the interest of justice.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that an electric connection bearing A/c No.R46SP810103N has been installed by the O.Ps., which is in the name of his father, Parshotam Dass,  since deceased, for running a flour mill, which is now being run by him, under the name and style ‘Parshotam Flour Mill’,  and the same is the only source of his & his family’s income. As such, he is “consumer’ of the O.Ps. He has been paying the electricity bills to the O.Ps., regularly, without any delay.  However, they had sent a bill for the period from 27.03.2014 to 28.04.2014 for a sum of Rs.59,890/- wrongly & illegally, in order to grab money and cause harassment & humiliation to him, because as per the meter reading, he had consumed 1999 units during the said period and the bill should have been for a total sum of Rs.13,237.26, after including the rent, surcharges etc. He approached the O.P. No.2  to correct the said bill, but its official directed him to deposit the amount of the said bill i.e. Rs.59,890/- and assured that the excess amount would be adjusted in the future bills. Accordingly, he had deposited the said amount, but the O.Ps.used to send the future bills without making any adjustment and did not pay any heed to his request to adjust the excess amount already paid by him. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.Ps. filed a joint written version  to the complaint in the shape of affidavit of Sh. P.S. Bains, Additional Superintending Engineer, taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no cause of action and no locus standi to file the present complaint because he is not consumer of the O.Ps., as he has no privity of contract with the O.Ps. and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is stated that death of the consumer of the O.Ps., namely, Parshotam Dass has not been brought to the notice of the O.Ps. As per rules of the O.P., the complainant is duty bound to maintain the power factor, but he failed to do so for the period from January, 2012 to December, 2012. However, inadvertently/oversightly, he was not charged for the power factor surcharges for the said period. However, the audit party vide half margin No. 118 dated 23.4.2014 pointed out to charge a sum of Rs.46,397/- on account of power factor surcharge w.e.f. 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012 from him, accordingly, the said amount was charged in the bill in dispute alongwith the regular consumption charges and a total bill for a sum of Rs.59,890/- was issued, which the consumer was liable to pay. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs.

 

4.       On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, photocopies of bills Ex. C1 to C4, and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. tendered affidavit of Sh. P.S. Bains, Additional S.E., photocopies of documents Ex. O.P. 1 to Ex.O.P.-4 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                At the very outset, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that the electricity connection in question is in the name of Parshotam Dass and the complainant has no privity of contract with the O.Ps., therefore, he is not ‘consumer’ and the complaint filed by him is liable to be dismissed, solely on that ground.

 

7.                In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that no doubt, the electric connection in question is in the name of Parshotam Dass, father of the complainant,  but after his death, the electricity through the said connection is being used by the complainant for running the flour mill in question for earning his livelihood and he has been regularly paying the electricity bills to the O.Ps. for the electricity being consumed by him, therefore, he being beneficiary and user of the electricity, is ‘consumer’ and the complaint filed by him is maintainable before this Forum.

 

8.                Admittedly, the electricity connection in question installed in the premises of a flour mill, stands in the name of father of the complainant, namely, Parshotam Dass, since deceased. As per the version of the complainant, after the death of his father, the said flour mill is being run by him to earn his livelihood and he has been regularly paying the electricity bills issued by the O.Ps. in respect of the electricity connection installed in the premises of the said flour mill. In support of his version, he has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit, Ex. CW1/A. On 30.3.2015, at the time of admission of the complaint itself, the complainant had also furnished another affidavit, in which he had deposed that he is the only legal heir of Parshotam Dass and after his death, he is running the flour mill in question. Since after the death of Parshotam Dass, the complainant is running the flour mill by using the electricity through the connection in question and has been regularly paying the bills issued by the O.Ps., therefore, being beneficiary, he is a ‘consumer’ qua the O.Ps. as per the definition of ‘consumer’ given in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act and the instant complaint filed by him is maintainable before this Forum. Our view is supported by the law laid down by our own Hon’ble State Commission in the case—‘P.K. Malhan versus S.D.O. PSEB’ 1998 (II) CPJ Pb. 210, wherein it has held that since the complainant is using the electricity from the connection, as such, he is beneficiary of services and a ‘consumer’ as defined in the Act. Even in the case of ‘Sat Pal versus PS.E.B. Secretary  & others’ 2006 (2) CPC Pb. 137,’ the Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab has reiterated that it is well settled that a person, who is staying in the house and is actual user of the electricity would be ‘consumer’ being a beneficiary. In that case also, electric connection was in the name of father of the complainant.

 

9.                Now coming to the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the O.Ps. had issued the bill dated 15.5.2014 to the complainant for the period  from 27.3.2014 to 28.4.2014 for the sum of Rs.59,890/-, which is highly exorbitant keeping in view the consumption of units shown in the said bill, according to which the same should have been issued only for a sum of Rs.13,237.26 only, therefore, the O.Ps. be directed to refund the amount of Rs.46,653/- charged from the complainant, in excess and also to pay compensation for the mental agony & harassment caused to him by them alongwith litigation expenses.

 

10.              In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that the complainant is duty bound to maintain the power factor, but he failed to do so for the period from January, 2012 to December, 2012. However, inadvertently, he was not charged for the power factor surcharge for the said period. The audit party vide half margin 118 dated 23.4.2014 pointed out to charge a sum of Rs.46,397/- on account of power factor surcharge w.e.f. 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012 from him, accordingly, the said amount was charged in the bill in dispute alongwith the regular consumption charges and a total bill for a sum of Rs.59,890/- was issued, which the consumer was liable to pay. The complaint filed by him is without any merit and the same be dismissed with costs.

 

11.              From the perusal of the impugned bill dated 15.5.2014 raised for the period from 27.3.2014 to 28.4.2014 for a sum of Rs.59,890/-, it is apparent that the O.Ps. have raised a demand of Rs.46397/- under the head ‘Sundry Charges’. As per version of the O.Ps., the said amount was claimed on the basis of the audit report made vide half margin 118 dated 23.4.2014, whereby it was pointed out to charge the sum of Rs.46,397/- on account of power factor surcharge w.e.f. 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012. Therefore, the only point for determination is, as to whether charging of the amount of Rs.46397/- under the head ‘Sundry Charges’, alongwith the regular consumption charges in the impugned bill, was justified?

 

12.              Instruction No. 93.1 of the Electricity Supply Instructions Manual, (First Edition updated till 31.3.2011) issued by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Head Office, Patiala, reads as under:-

          “PAYMENT OF ARREARS NOT ORIGINALLY BILLED:

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/load or Demand Surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the Board employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application or 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 bills of the consumer.”

 

                   It is clear from the perusal of the afore-quoted Instruction itself that Sundry Charges cannot be included in the current bill of the consumer. If any amount was found recoverable, a separate bill, giving complete details of the said amount due, was required to be issued to the complainant. In the case –‘Om Parkash Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer, Gopal Nagar Sub Division, PSEB, Majitha Road, Amritsar’,  Appeal No.1225 of 2000 exactly the similar point was decided on 25.11.2002 and the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab had set aside the order passed by the Distrtict Forum observing that the complainant had paid the bill, in order to avoid disconnection of the electricity, but challenged the same before the Distt. Forum.; it is right of the consumer to know the details, for which he is being charged; the Opposite Party did not follow the instructions and to aggravate the agony of the complainant did not give the details as well; in that manner, the Opposite Party was deficient in rendering service , for which the complainant deserved to be compensated for the mental agony, harassment, he had suffered.

                   The facts of the present complaint before us are similar to the facts of the aforesaid case decided by the Hon’ble State Commission because in the present case, also the O.Ps. had issued the impugned bill including therein the amount under the head ‘Sundry Charges’, without giving any prior notice, depicting therein the details of the amount claimed. Accordingly, the charging of the said  amount of Rs.46397/- under the head ‘Sundry Charges’ in the impugned bill dated 15.05.2014, without giving any prior notice disclosing therein the details thereof, definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Admittedly, the complainant has already paid the entire amount of the bill in dispute, including the impugned ‘Sundry Charges’ of Rs.46397/-, therefore, the O.Ps. are liable to refund the said amount of Rs.46397/-. Not only this, they are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony & physical harassment, suffered by him alongwith the litigation expenses.

 

13.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the O.Ps. in the following manner:-

i)       To refund the amount of Rs.46397/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. the date of deposit till realization,

ii)      To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation,

iii)     To pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses,

 

          The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the above said directions within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  However, the O.Ps. shall be at liberty to take steps for recovery of the amount reflected under the head ‘Sundry Charges’ in the impugned bill, from the complainant, as per the instructions, referred to above in this order, after affording him due opportunity of hearing.

 

14.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated:  03.07.2015                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.