Order dictated by:
Smt.Vinod Bala, Presiding Member
1. The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12/14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that an electric connection bearing account No. 3002676641 is installed in the residential premises of the complainant by the Opposite Parties and hence the Complainant is consumer of the said electric connection and paying the electricity charges regularly and nothing is due against him. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties have issued a bill for Rs.26,870/- for the month of August, 2017 and when the Complainant checked the meter, it was not working properly and it was giving the ratio of 7 KW load and then the Complainant made online complaint vide No. 8455361 dated 13.8.2017 and then vide No.8464563 dated 14.8.2017, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the requests of the Complainant, copies of the said complaints sent through online website are enclosed. Thereafter on the asking of SDO of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has challenged the said bill, but the Opposite Parties again issued a bill for Rs.43,400/-. When the Complainant went to the office of Opposite Parties, but instead of correcting the bill, the Opposite Parties enhanced the amount from Rs.43,400/- to Rs.57,120/-. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the XEN of the Opposite Parties who told the Complainant to deposit Rs.11,095/- till the Complainant receives the ME report and then the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.11,100/- on the asking of the XEN of the Opposite Parties. But again the Opposite Parties have issued a bill dated 23.11.2017 for Rs.52,960/- and told that the ME report has been received and the meter of the Complainant is found OK, however before this, the officials of the Opposite Parties took the signatures of the Complainant on the blank papers. The said bill was excessive one and the same has been challenged, but to no effect. Said demand of the Opposite Parties is altogether illegal, unjust, void at law and liable to be set aside due to the reasons that no notice of any kind has been issued to the Complainant before imposing the said amount in the current consumption bill; that the Complainant has been condemned unheard; no opportunity has been granted to the Complainant; that the mandatory provisions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited has been violated and that no checking of the connection was conducted in the presence of the Complainant or his representative. Now the Opposite Parties are bent upon and pressurizing to recover the amount of Rs.52,970/- and in default to make the said payment to disconnect the electric connection in dispute forcibly and illegally. In case the Opposite Parties succeeds to do so, the Complainant would suffer huge loss which could not be compensated lateron in terms of money. The Opposite Parties were asked 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.
- To quash the illegal demand of Rs.52,960/- raised vide bill for the month of December, 2017 by restraining the Opposite Parties to recover the said amount and disconnecting the electric connection of the Complainant forcibly, and illegally and to pay sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of compensation damages, mental tension and deficient services or any other relief to which this Forum may deem fit and proper.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the Complaint is not maintainable; that the Complainant is stopped to file the present complaint by his own act and conduct and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and to decide the instant complaint. On merits, it is averred that it is admitted that the connection in question has been installed in the premises of the Complainant and the payment made by the Complainant has been duly adjusted in his account and the disputed amount is due and recoverable from the Complainant. Actual facts are that earlier as per bill dated 28.07.2017 the Complainant has consumed 3555 units regarding which a bill of Rs.27,050/- was issued. The Complainant moved an application in which he challenged the electric meter of the said connection and vide MCO the said meter was changed with a new one on 6.9.2017 and after that as per the bill dated 13.10.2017, the consumption of the new meter was 1509 units and consumption of the old meter was 2252 units and accordingly bill of Rs.57120/- was issued to the Complainant at the time of changing the old meter with a new meter. In this regard, the Complainant gave a self declaration/ consent letter that in case the removed meter is checked in ME Lab, he will be bound by the result of the same and he will not lodge any claim or court case regarding the same. Said meter was duly checked in the ME Lab and it was found OK and now the Complainant has concocted a false story only to grab the amount in question which is a public money and hence the demand raised by the Opposite Parties is legal one and is not liable to be set aside. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence on behalf of Complainant.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Het Ram, SDO Ex.OPs1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs2 to Ex.OPs8 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the complainant and ld.counsel for Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. During the course of arguments, the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that an electric connection bearing account No. 3002676641 is installed in the residential premises of the complainant by the Opposite Parties and hence the Complainant is consumer of the said electric connection and paying the electricity charges regularly and nothing is due against him. It is the further case of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties have issued a bill for Rs.26,870/- for the month of August, 2017 and when the Complainant checked the meter, it was not working properly and it was giving the ratio of 7 KW load and then the Complainant made online complaint vide No. 8455361 dated 13.8.2017 and then vide No.8464563 dated 14.8.2017, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the requests of the Complainant, copies of the said complaints sent through online website are enclosed. Thereafter on the asking of SDO of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has challenged the said bill, but the Opposite Parties again issued a bill for Rs.43,400/-. It is further submitted that when the Complainant went to the office of Opposite Parties, but instead of correcting the bill, the Opposite Parties enhanced the amount from Rs.43,400/- to Rs.57,120/-. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the XEN of the Opposite Parties who told the Complainant to deposit Rs.11,095/- till the Complainant receives the ME report and then the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.11,100/- on the asking of the XEN of the Opposite Parties. But again the Opposite Parties have issued a bill dated 23.11.2017 for Rs.52,960/- and told that the ME report has been received and the meter of the Complainant is found OK, however before this, the officials of the Opposite Parties took the signatures of the Complainant on the blank papers. The Complainant further submitted that the said bill was excessive one and the same has been challenged, but to no effect. Said demand of the Opposite Parties is altogether illegal, unjust, void at law and liable to be set aside due to the reasons that no notice of any kind has been issued to the Complainant before imposing the said amount in the current consumption bill; that the Complainant has been condemned unheard; no opportunity has been granted to the Complainant; that the mandatory provisions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited has been violated and that no checking of the connection was conducted in the presence of the Complainant or his representative and now the Opposite Parties are bent upon and pressurizing to recover the amount of Rs.52,970/- and in default to make the said payment to disconnect the electric connection in dispute forcibly and illegally. In case the Opposite Parties succeeds to do so, the Complainant would suffer huge loss which could not be compensated lateron in terms of money. The Opposite Parties were asked many a times to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant, but they finally refused to do so, hence this complaint is filed allegedly due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the Complainant on the ground that it is admitted that the connection in question has been installed in the premises of the Complainant and the payment made by the Complainant has been duly adjusted in his account and the disputed amount is due and recoverable from the Complainant. Actual facts are that earlier as per bill dated 28.07.2017 the Complainant has consumed 3555 units regarding which a bill of Rs.27,050/- was issued. The Complainant moved an application in which he challenged the electric meter of the said connection and vide MCO the said meter was changed with a new one on 6.9.2017 and after that as per the bill dated 13.10.2017, the consumption of the new meter was 1509 units and consumption of the old meter was 2252 units and accordingly bill of Rs.57120/- was issued to the Complainant at the time of changing the old meter with a new meter. In this regard, the Complainant gave a self declaration/ consent letter that in case the removed meter is checked in ME Lab, he will be bound by the result of the same and he will not lodge any claim or court case regarding the same. Said meter was duly checked in the ME Lab and it was found OK and now the Complainant has concocted a false story only to grab the amount in question which is a public money and hence the demand raised by the Opposite Parties is legal one and is not liable to be set aside. But we are not in agreement with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties because perusal of the record shows that before issuance of the bill indispute, the Complainant never used the consumption to such extent. Ex.C4 shows that the Opposite Parties sent bill dated 20.1.2017 for an amount of Rs.8160/-, similarly sent bill dated 26.03.2018 for Rs.6420/-, similarly bill dated 28.5.2017 for Rs.4580/- and this consumption data has nowhere denied or controverted by the Opposite Parties. But the instant disputed bill is so exorbitant and due to such exorbitant/ excessive consumption, the Complainant moved an application with Opposite Parties for checking the meter installed at his premises from ME Lab and for this purpose, he also deposited Rs.250/- with the Opposite Parties, copy of the said receipt accounts for Ex.C5. Copy of the ME Lab report Ex.C6 shows that the meter in dispute was found OK. But the Opposite Parties have failed to prove that during the disputed period, the Complainant has used the electricity to such extent and the Opposite Parties have also failed to prove that during those days, there was any special occasion/ function at the residence of the Complainant and due to this reason, the Complainant have used the electricity to such extent. Furthermore, the case of the Complainant is that no separate notice has ever been issued to him by the Opposite Parties, if any defaulting amount was due against him. Hence, we are of the view that in such a situation, as per Sub Clause 5 (b) referred to section 30 of the Act as laid down in Part-III Punjab govt. Faz. July 27, 2007 (SRVN 5.1929 SAKA). (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, Notification no. PSERC/Secy./Regu.31 dated June 29, 2007), the bill for arrears in the case of under assessment or the charges levied as a result of checking etc. will be initially tendered separately and will not be clubbed with the current electricity bill. The arrear bill would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrears. The Opposite Parties could not charge this amount from the complainant in the current electricity consumption bill without issuing prior detailed notice as per regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party. It has been held by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case PSEB Vs. Hardeep Singh 2010(2) CLT 259 that where the demand was not raised by the appellant through a separate detailed notice as required by Regulation 124.1 and added in the bill in dispute as sundry charges, there is violation of the regulation of the Opposite Party. However, the appellant is at liberty to raise fresh demand of the amount in dispute and can charge the same from the complainant by following proper procedure. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case Ishar Singli Vs. PSEB 2011 (2) CLT page 420. In the present case also, the Opposite Party has directly charged this amount from the complainant in the current electric consumption bill in dispute without serving prior notice and giving the complainant an opportunity to file the objections, if any, i.e. without giving prior opportunity of being heard to the complainant. And in view of aforesaid regulation of their own corporation, we at this stage, found illegality on the part of the Opposite Parties understanding that there is great lapse on the part of the Opposite Parties for not issuing separate notice upon the Complainant, if any defaulting amount was due to the Complainant.
8. Secondly, in the present case, the Opposite Parties could not prove such exorbitant consumption, if any, by the consumer by any cogent and convincing evidence. Moreover, in such a situation, as per section 21.4 (g) Electricity Supply Code, 2007 and as per Regulation 73.1.2 of ‘Electricity Supply Regulations 2005’ the Opposite Parties could charge the consumer for the period the disputed period, average consumption of last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption. The relevant section 21.4 (g) Electricity Supply Code, 2007 and as per Regulation 73.1.2 of ‘Electricity Supply Regulations 2005’ is reproduced as under:-
“So far as charging the consumer for the period the meter remained inoperative is concerned, average consumption of last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption, if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption as under and higher of the two figures shall be charged to set the consumer’s account right finally.
9. Thus, perusal of the aforesaid regulation reveals that the Opposite Parties can take the average consumption of last 4 to 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow this complaint and quash the demand of Rs.52,960/- raised by the Opposite Parties from the Complainant vide bill for the month of December, 2017. However, the Opposite Parties shall be at liberty to overhaul the account of the Complainant for the disputed period by taking the average consumption of last 4 to 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption if any, whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 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
