Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       Sh.Des Raj alias Desha Singh, complainant  has filed the instant complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that an electric connection bearing account No.F27DG630672Y (wrongly mentioned in the pleading by the complainant as F-270063 which fact is not disputed one)  is installed by the Opposite Parties in his residential premises  and he has been paying the consumption bills regularly and nothing is due against him. The Complainant further alleges that he is an old person having the age of 75 years and does not know the technique of electricity and is totally ignorant and innocent person. The case of the complainant is that the Opposite Parties issued him a bill dated 23.08.2018 vide which they raised a huge demand of Rs.22,290/- without explaining any reason which is altogether  illegal, unjust, void at law and liable to be set aside because the complainant is living below the poverty line  and consumption to such extent can not be imagined. There are only two bulbs, two fans installed in his residential premises and the consumption never exceeded  Rs.1200/- which allegedly proves from the previous bills attached with this complaint. Moreover, no prior notice of any kind has ever been issued to the complainant before imposing the impugned amount in the consumption bill and in this way, the complainant has been condemned unheard. The complainant further alleges that the mandatory provisions of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited have been violated and now the officials of the Opposite Parties are bent upon and threatening to recover the impugned amount forcibly and illegally by taking law into their hands violating the prescribed rules and regulations of the Corporation. The Complainant further alleges that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties is deficient one. The Opposite Parties were requested many a times to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant, but they finally refused to do so, hence this complaint is filed due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

1. Opposite Party be directed to quash the illegal demand of Rs.22,290/- raised vide bill dated 23.08.2018 and  also to restrain the Opposite Parties not to recover the impugned amount and not to disconnect the electric connection of the Complainant forcibly and illegally.
2. The Opposite Parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for causing him mental tension, harassment and for deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
3. Any  other appropriate relief as this Forum deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the Complainant.

2.       After  the notice served  upon the Opposite Parties, they  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the  instant complaint and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. On merits, the Opposite Parties allege that admittedly the Opposite Parties issued the impugned bill  which is legal one and in accordance with rules and regulations of the Corporation. Actual facts are that the electric connection in question has been installed in the residential premises of the complainant under WSD category and the complainant is  having 0.66 KW sanctioned load of electric connection and the rebate of WSD category was given to the complainant earlier. But as per Memo No.2/5/2015-PE2/6161 dated 17.10.2017, copy of which is placed on record as OPs1, it is clearly written “To pay subsidy on account of free supply upto 200 units per month to SC DS, Non-SC, BPL DS and BC DS consumers with a connected load upto 1 KW subject to the condition that subsidy on account of free supply of 200 units per month with a connected load upto 1 KW shall be provided only to BPL SC DS, BPL Non-SC DS and BPL Backward Classes consumers only provided that their total consumption in the preceding years has not been more than 3000 units per Annum meaning thereby that household shall be entitled to the subsidy in a current year only if the total consumption in the preceding year has been less than 3000 units per annum. This will be effective from November 1^st 2017.” The complainant consumed the electricity  for the year more than 3000 units and hence the complainant is not entitled to rebate of WSD category. It is further alleged that the amount of Rs.26,260/- was outstanding against the complainant on account of consumption charges from December, 2017 to October 2018, the  copies of detail of bills are attached on file as Ex.OPs3, whereas the copies of the bills are placed on record as Ex.OPs4 to OPs8, but the complainant did not pay the bills from December, 2017 to October, 2018  hence the complainant is liable to pay the aforesaid amount both in law and equity to the Opposite Parties because the demand raised by the Opposite Parties is legal one and in accordance with rules and regulations of the corporation. Moreover, the Corporation has a legal right to disconnect the electric connection on account of non payment of bill in dispute.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In order to prove  his case, the complainant has placed on record  his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 13.05.2006 and copy of disputed bill dated 23.08.2018 Ex.C3.

4.       On the other hand,  the Opposite Parties also placed on record the copy of Memo No.2/5/2015-PE2/6161 dated 17.10.2017 Ex.OPs1, copies of consumption data Ex.OPs2 and Ex.OPs3, copies of consumption  bills Ex.OPs4 to Ex.OPs8 and affidavit of Sh.Sukhdev Singh, SDO, Dagru Ex.OPs9.

5.       We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Parties, perused the written arguments placed on record by the Opposite Parties  and  we have carefully gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that he is a old person having age of more than 75 years and  has been harassing by the Opposite Parties without any fault. The Complainant further contended that he belongs to WSD category and an electric connection with sanctioned load of 0.66 KW is installed by the Opposite Parties since long in his residential premises where only two bulbs and two fans are installed.  He further contended that Punjab Government has provided subsidy in the electricity consumption upto the extent of 200 units whose connected load is less than  1 KW, to WSD category consumers. Because the complainant also falls in the said category and having the sanctioned load upto the extent of 0.66 KW, so he is also taking the benefit of said subsidy provided by the Punjab Government.  The complainant contended that the  Opposite Parties issued him a bill dated 23.08.2018  (copy of which is Ex.C1 placed on record) vide which they raised a huge demand of Rs.22,290/- without explaining any reason which is altogether  illegal, unjust, void at law and liable to be set aside because the complainant is living below the poverty line  and consumption to such extent can not be imagined and his consumption never exceeded  Rs.1200/-. Moreover, no prior notice of any kind has ever been issued to the complainant before imposing the impugned amount in the consumption bill and in this way, the complainant has been condemned unheard. The complainant further contended that the mandatory provisions of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited have been violated and now the officials of the Opposite Parties are bent upon and threatening to recover the impugned amount forcibly and illegally by taking law into their hands violating the prescribed rules and regulations of the Corporation.  The Complainant has further contended that if there was any such letter of Punjab Government with the Opposite Parties, he was never conveyed such letter, whereas it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to intimate in this regard to the complainant so that he might have restrict his consumption as per the alleged letter. The Complainant has further contended that he is a very poor  and illiterate person  having age of more than 75 years and thumb marks which proves from his complaint, so he has been condemned without hearing.  The Complainant further alleges that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties is deficient one.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the Complainant on the ground that it is not disputed that the Opposite Parties issued the impugned bill  to the complainant which is legal one and in accordance with rules and regulations of the Corporation. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has further contended that the electric connection in question has been installed in the residential premises of the complainant under WSD category and the complainant is  having 0.66 KW sanctioned load of electric connection and the rebate of WSD category was given to the complainant earlier. But as per Memo No.2/5/2015-PE2/6161 dated 17.10.2017, copy of which is placed on record as OPs1, it is clearly written “To pay subsidy on account of free supply upto 200 units per month to SC DS, Non-SC, BPL DS and BC DS consumers with a connected load upto 1 KW subject to the condition that subsidy on account of free supply of 200 units per month with a connected load upto 1 KW shall be provided only to BPL SC DS, BPL Non-SC DS and BPL Backward Classes consumers only provided that their total consumption in the preceding years has not been more than 3000 units per Annum meaning thereby that household shall be entitled to the subsidy in a current year only if the total consumption in the preceding year has been less than 3000 units per annum. This will be effective from November 1^st 2017.” The complainant consumed the electricity  for the year more than 3000 units and hence the complainant is not entitled to rebate of WSD category. It is further contended that the amount of Rs.26,260/- was outstanding against the complainant on account of consumption charges from December, 2017 to October 2018, the  copies of detail of bills are attached on file as Ex.OPs3, whereas the copies of the bills are placed on record as Ex.OPs4 to OPs8, but the complainant did not pay the bills from December, 2017 to October, 2018  hence the complainant is liable to pay the aforesaid amount both in law and equity to the Opposite Parties because the demand raised by the Opposite Parties is legal one and in accordance with rules and regulations of the corporation  and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

8.      We have gone through the rival contentions of the parties. The case of the consumer is that  no prior notice as required under Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2014 (Up to 4^th amendment) has ever been issued to him before adding such huge amount in his consumption bill so that he could challenge this amount separately. We have perused the record and also made query from the Opposite Parties in this regard, but the Opposite Parties have failed to satisfy this Forum. Moreover, no such documentary evidence has been placed on record by the Opposite Parties to prove that they ever issued any prior notice before adding the impugned amount in the consumption bill of the Consumer.  Undoubtedly,  as per the  Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2014 (Up to 4^th amendment) Regulation 30.1.2 under the head Billing Details, it is mandatory for the Corporation to issue initially a separate notice of the arrear amount  to the consumer and not to club with the current electricity bill. The relevant para of the supra regulation 30.1.2 is reproduced as under:-

“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.” 

Hence, there is a lapse on the part of the Opposite Parties for non issuing the mandatory prior  notice to the  Consumer before adding such hefty amount in his consumption bill.

9.       The further contention of the Consumer  is that if there was any such letter of Punjab Government with the Opposite Parties on the basis of which they raised such huge amount from the Consumer, he was never conveyed such letter so that he might have restricted his consumption upto 3000 units per annum, whereas it was the bonded duty of the Opposite Parties to intimate in this regard to the complainant. The Consumer has further contended that he is a very poor  and illiterate person  having age of more than 75 years and thumb marks the documents and belongs to WSD category, which proves from his complaint, so he has been condemned without hearing. We agree with the aforesaid contention of the Consumer  because the Opposite Parties have failed to prove if they have ever educated the consumer about this letter of the Punjab Government before adding such huge amount directly in his consumption bill. It is correct that if this fact brought to the knowledge of the consumer in advance, he might have restricted his consumption as per the directions of this letter of Punjab Government. So, at this stage, the imposition of  such huge amount from poor consumer who admittedly belongs to WSD category amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Moreover, it is the duty of this Fora to provide better protection of the interest of consumers  and the rights are to be protected against unfair trade practice, more-so, the rights to be heard and to be assured that consumers interests will receive due consideration at appropriate Forums. Furthermore, the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and right to consumer education  be also protected by this Forum, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, in our view, the impugned demand raised by the Opposite Parties from the consumer vide bill dated 23.08.2018 is not legal and the same is liable to be set aside.         

10.     No other point is urged before us.

11.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we  allow the complaint of the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to withdraw the impugned amount of Rs. 22,290/- alongwith interest and penalty imposed  thereon raised vide bill dated 23.08.2018 from the complainant. Opposite Party  is further directed to refund or adjust the amount, if already paid by the complainant in lieu of this bill as per the interim order dated  14.09.2018  passed by this Forum. However, the complaint against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 stands dismissed because the Complainant has not arrayed Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 as per law of legal jurisprudence.  The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get this order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum.