Punjab

Moga

CC/16/96

Jagroop Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Tarang Chopra

02 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                                                                      CC No. 96 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 10.05.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 02.08.2016

 

Jagroop Singh, aged about 60 years son of Gulwant Singh, resident of Village: Dhurkot Ransih, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga.

                                                                          ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.

 

2.       Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Suburban Sub Division, Bagha Purana.

 

3.       S.D.O. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Patto Hira Singh District, Moga.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 and 14  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Tarang Chopra, Advocate Cl. for complainant.  

                   Sh. Raj Kumar Goyal, Advocate Cl. for opposite parties.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs. 76,190/- as per alleged bill issued on 21.04.2016 and payable in respect of electric connection no. F13DR391062P, to set aside the notice bearing memo no.244 dated 16.02.2016 for an amount of Rs. 73,614/- altogether illegal, un-warranted unjust, void against the fundamental principal of law. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation, mental tension and deficient services to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be also granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the electric connection no. F13DR391062P was in the name of complainant and the complainant was paying the consumption charges regularly. The complainant is the consumer of opposite parties in respect of electric connection in dispute. The opposite party no.3 has issued notice dated 16.02.2016 vide which they have demanded a sum of Rs.73,614/- regarding the short assessment made by the audit party. The complainant approached the office of opposite parties and made grievance before them regarding the same, but the complainant was told to deposit actual consumption charges and also told that the dispute regarding the said alleged amount will be considered lateron. Thereafter, opposite parties issued a bill dated 21.04.2016 for a sum of Rs. 76,190/- in which Rs. 73,614/- was added as sundry charges. The complainant again approached the opposite parties and made grievance before them regarding the alleged demand, but the complainant was told that as per notice half margin no.25 dated 12/15 during the short assessment made by audit party Rs.73,614/- was due against the complainant. It is a matter of dismay and surprise that as per version of the opposite parties the said Meter was removed at the reading of 8314 then how as per challan no.30 dated 18.03.2015 the reading of the said meter was 18362, when the meter was removed. The report of the said audit is vague, wrong an arbitrary one and is clearly gross violation of the principles of PSPC Ltd. and against the law. It has been further alleged that in the year 2014 the consumption of the said meter was OK and all the bills in the year 2014 was paid by the consumer with 'O' Code. The opposite parties has issued a bill on 21.04.2016 demanding a sum of Rs. 76,190/-. Further the complainant had never been called in the ME Lab during the testing of the said meter as alleged in half margin no.12/15 as per Challan no.30 dated 18.03.2015 nor the said short assessment made by the audit party was made in the presence of complainant or his representative. The above said demand is altogether illegal, unjust, unwarranted, void at law and liable to be set aside on the following grounds:

i)         That no checking in the ME Lab can be conducted in the absence of complainant or his representative.

ii)        That the said alleged demand relates to previous meter and was made in the bill of new meter which is clearly gross violation of the law.

iii)       That no memo of any kind has been issued to the complainant within the time.

iv)       That no proper notice of any kind has been issued before imposing the said amount.

v)        That the complainant has been condemned un-heard.

vi)       That no opportunity has been granted to the complainant.

Vii)     That mandatory provision of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. has been violated.

viii)     That as a matter of fact Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, is a monopoly concern and the official and the lower rank staff of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd used to harass and tease the innocent person only to extract money from them.

ix)       That the complainant has never used the electricity to this extent the average of the complainant was never received Rs. 76,190/-.

x)        That alleged demand is altogether, ex-parte, arbitrary and dictatorship one. 

                   The opposite parties are bent upon and threatening to recover the amount of Rs. 76,190/- forcibly, illegally, unjustly and by taking law into their own hands. In case the opposite parties succeeds in doing so, the complainant will suffer huge loss and injuries which cannot be compensated later on in terms of money. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum and hence is not entitled to any relief as claimed for; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the instant complaint. On merits, it is admitted correct to the extent that complainant is consumer of electric connection no. DR 39/1062. Opposite party no.3 has issued notice no.244 dated 16.02.2016 in which demand of Rs.73,614/- has been raised. The complainant has moved on application dated 5.5.2016 with opposite party no.3. However, the complainant is stopped to file the said application as well as the present complaint by his own act & conduct. On the one hand, the complainant is saying that the amount cannot be added in the bill and can be charged by way of issuing separate notice, while on the other hand, he has admitted that he has received notice no.244 dated 16.02.2016. From the said notice, it is very much clear that detail of the said amount has attached with the said notice, which was duly received by the complainant. No rule was ever violated by the opposite parties and that demand raised by the opposite parties is legal one. The complainant was fully convinced and he promised to deposit the said amount within a short period, but after that due to ill advice, he has filed the present complaint, which is false & frivolous. Actual facts are that the old meter of the complainant was changed with a new one vide MCO dated 14.01.2015 by the concerned Junior Engineer due to 'D' code in the presence of the complainant on 22.01.2015 and new meter at the reading of 00002 was installed in the premises of the complainant and the said old removed meter alongwith other meters was brought to ME Lab Moga, vide store Challan no. 30 dated 18.03.2015 by Sh. Baldev Singh, A.J.E where it was found that reading on the said meter was 18382. The reading of the said old meter in December, 2014 was 8314 units. The Audit Party has overhauled the account of complainant vide Half Margin no.25 of December 2015 and directed to charge the difference of 18382 (-) 8314 = 10068 units and the amount already charged from the complainant has been deducted. By this way, the complainant was directed to pay Rs. 73,614/- due to the reasons mentioned above and due notice alongwith copy of detail of the said amount was duly sent to the complainant. The complainant is in knowledge that he has deliberately burnt the meter only to destroy the evidence of the said meter and hence is legally bound to pay the same, but only to block the public money, he has filed the present complaint, which totally false & frivolous. It is further admitted correct to the extent that the opposite parties have issued the bill earlier in which the said amount has been charged on the reasons mentioned above. Due notice was issued to the complainant and copy of detail of the amount was also sent to the complainant alongwith the said notice. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.  

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant Sh. Jagroop Singh tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-9 and closed the evidence. 

5.                 In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in their evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Devinder Pal Singh, Sub Divisional Officer M.E. Lab, Moga and copies of documents Ex. OPs-1 and copy of Store Challan Ex. OPs-2 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                Learned counsel for complainant argued that he has a domestic electric connection installed in his residence issued by OPs and he is the consumer of OPs. He regularly paying the consumption charges and nothing was due towards the complainant as electricity charges, copy of the bill and receipt is Ex. C-4 to C-6. On 16.02.2016 OP no.3 issued a notice to the complainant demanding Rs.73,614/- on account of short assessment made by Audit Party, copy of the notice is Ex. C-2. He approached the office of OPs and made his grievance before them. He was told to deposit actual consumption charges and disputed amount will be considered lateron. But thereafter in the bill dated 21.04.2016 a sum of Rs. 76,190/- was demanded out of which Rs.73,614/- was paid as sundry charges. He again approached OP No.2 and requested them to withdraw the alleged demand. OPs told that as per notice half margin no.25 dated 12/15 the short assessment made by audit party Rs.73614/- was due against him. As per month 12/14 the meter was shown as 'D' code and reading of the said meter was 8314 and the said meter was changed at the reading of 8314, but as per challan no.30 dated 18.03.2015, the final reading of the meter was 18382 and there is a difference regarding the reading of the meter and the same may be charged from the complainant and Rs.73614/- was due against him. This demand is altogether illegal, null and void as per the their own version. The meter was removed at the reading of 8314 and in the ME Lab it is found  18382 units. This assessment order is liable to be set aside. Prior to issuance of this assessment order, Ops did not issue any notice of any kind to complainant. No opportunity of hearing is given to complainant. The Ops have violated the terms and conditions of PSPCL. No checking of the meter of the alleged connection was conducted in the presence of complainant or his representatives. No notice or consent was taken from complainant by Ops to check the meter. The alleged meter was not checked in the presence of complainant or his representatives. Ops have illegally charged this amount from complainant. Ops/PSPCL is a monopoly concern and its officials are used to harass the consumers only to extract money from them. The complainant approached Ops and requested them to withdraw this amount being illegal, but they refused to withdraw this amount and threatened him to disconnect his connection if he did not deposit this amount with them. The ops have no right to claim this amount from him. All these acts of Ops amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. He has prayed that Ops may be directed to withdraw the demand of amount in dispute alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

8.                To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld. counsel for OPs argued that there is no deficiency in service and mal trade practice on their part. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. Further argued that actually the old meter of the complainant was changed with a new one vide MCO dated 14.01.2015 by the department due to 'D' code in the presence of the complainant on 22.01.2015 and new meter at the reading of 2 unit was installed at the premises of the complainant and the old removed meter was sent to ME Lab, Moga vide store Challan no. 30 dated 18.03.2015 for internal checking, where it was found that reading on the said meter was 18382, whereas the reading of the said old meter in December, 2014 was 8314 units. The Audit Party has overhauled the account of complainant in December 2015 and directed to charge the difference of consumption. By this way, the complainant was directed to pay Rs. 73,614/- due to difference of consumption. Due notice alongwith detail was duly sent to complainant, copy of the report of M.E. Lab is Ex. OP-2. The complainant has deliberately burnt the meter only to destroy the evidence of the said meter and hence is legally bound to pay this amount. He filed the present complaint only to block the public money. The demand raised by the OPs is legal and not liable to be set aside and is liable to be recovered from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

9.                We have heard the ld. counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the evidence and record placed on file.

10.              The case of the complainant is that he has a domestic electric connection issued by OPs. He is regularly paying all the electricity bills and nothing is due towards him. In February, 2016 he received a notice/assessment order issued by Ops demanding Rs 73,614/- from him, which is altogether illegal. It is illegal as nothing is due towards him on account of electricity charges. The demand of Ops is illegal and may be set aside. In reply, Ops admitted that complainant is their consumer and his meter was changed as his old meter was defective. They argued that his old meter was sent for checking to M E Lab, Moga where during checking it was found that as per office record, last consumption of his meter was recorded as 8314 whereas in inspection, it is observed as 18382. So, as per report of M E Lab, Moga, they assessed the difference in consumption due to excessive load and demanded that amount from complainant. They assessed this amount correctly and as per rules of the Ops/Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and are entitled to recover this amount from complainant.

11.              We have carefully gone through the evidence led by both the parties. The Ops submitted that as old meter of the complainant was defective and it was changed with new one and the old meter was sent to M.E. Lab for checking, where it is found that as per record of office, the last reading of the said meter is recorded as 8314 and in checking report by M E Lab, the reading of the meter found as 18382. So, they have rightly charged this amount from complainant on account of excessive consumption. It is admitted that at the time of change of meter, the meter was never sealed or checked in the presence of complaint or his representatives. Further, this meter was never checked or opened in the presence of complainant or his representatives in M.E. Lab. Even no notice or intimation of any kind regarding the checking of his meter in M E Lab, Moga was given to complainant. No opportunity to get checked the meter in the presence of complainant or his representative or to be heard before issuance of this notice/assessment order was given to complainant. As per record of Ops, the reading of the old meter in the month of December 2014 before change of the meter is recorded as 8314. They changed the old meter on January, 2015. As per their own record, they never sealed or checked the meter of complainant in his presence and they did not give any opportunity to complainant to submit his version. We can not rely upon the report of M E Lab, Moga, which is prepared by Ops themselves in the absence of complainant arbitrarily being a monopoly concern.

12.              In these circumstances, we are of considered opinion that Ops are not entitled to recover this amount from complainant. All these acts of Ops amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Hence, the complaint in hand is hereby allowed. The Ops are ordered to withdraw the demand of Rs. 73,614/-demanded by them vide their notice/assessment order dt. 16.02.2016 Ex C-2. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 02.08.2016

 

                        (Bupinder Kaur)                           (Vinod Bala)               (Ajit Aggarwal)

                              Member                                    Member                      President