Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that an electric connection bearing account no.F16TF490879L having sanctioned load of 3.40 KW has been installed at the residential premises of the Complainant and he is paying the consumption charges of the said connection regularly without any default. Further alleges that the Opposite Parties have issued bill dated 21.06.2018 in which they have raised a exorbitant demand of Rs.2,02,898/- without explaining any reason which is altogether wrong, illegal, unjust void at law and is liable to be set aside because no prior notice has ever been issued to the Complainant before imposing the said amount in his regular consumption bill. Moreover, no opportunity has ever been granted by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant to be heard. Further alleges that the mandatory provisions has not been complied with before adding such huge amount in the consumption bill of the Complainant. It is a domestic connection and the bi-monthly consumption of the Complainant never exceeded Rs.2,000/- and in the impugned bill, the consumption shown is only 826 units whereas Rs.1,92,552/- has been added on account of arrears and the Complainant never used the electricity to such extent. After receiving the impugned bill, the complainant approached the officials of the opposite parties to know about such exorbitant consumption bill and to correct the same, but the officials of opposite parties refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant and made a threat that they will disconnect the electricity supply in case the impugned bill is not paid. However, the claimed bill is very excessive and is contrary to all previous bills. The opposite parties have no right to charge the impugned amount and to disconnect the supply because all the previous bills upto date have duly been paid. In case, the opposite parties succeeded in their malafide motives and disconnected the electricity supply due to non payment of the alleged illegal demand, then the complainant would suffer an irreparable loss which could not be compensated lateron in any way; that the repeated requests have been made by the complainant to the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal demand and not to indulge the complainant into any litigation, but opposite parties refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Due to the aforesaid act and conduct and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and financial loss. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following relief.
- To set aside the illegal demand of Rs.2,02,898/- raised by the Opposite Parties vide bill dated 21.06.2018. Further opposite parties may also be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment.
- Further the Opposite Parties may be directed not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant due to non payment of the impugned amount in violation of the terms and conditions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited.
- And any other relief may kindly be granted as this District Commission may deem fit and proper.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable and that this District Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is averred that the Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Hon’ble District Consumer Commission. Actual facts are that an electric connection bearing account No. TF-49/1101 was earlier installed in the name of Inderjit Singh son of Mukthiar Singh (son of the Complainant) in the said premises and the same was permanently disconnected on account of non payment of consumption charges. Thus, the defaulting amount of previous account bearing No. TF-49/1101 becomes chargeable from the Complainant because said connection was installed in the premises of the Complainant and the said amount has been added in the consumption bill of the Complainant to which the Opposite Parties are entitled to recover the said amount of previous account from the Complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special costs has been made.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and copy of disputed bill Ex.C2.
4. On the other hand alongwith written version, the Opposite Parties placed on record the affidavit of Sh.Inderjit Singh, SDO Ex.OPs1 and copies of documents Ex.Ops2 to Ex.OPs41.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also perused the written arguments placed on record by the Opposite Parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that an electric connection bearing account no.F16TF490879L having sanctioned load of 3.40 KW is installed at the residential premises of the Complainant and he has been paying the consumption charges of the said connection regularly. Ld.counsel for the Complainant has contended that that the Opposite Parties have issued bill dated 21.06.2018 (Ex.C2) in which they have raised a demand of Rs.2,02,898/- without explaining any reason. It is the case of the Complainant that no separate prior notice has ever been issued by the Opposite Parties before imposing the said amount in the regular consumption bill and further no opportunity has ever been granted by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant to be heard. Ld.counsel for the Complainant further contended that the mandatory provisions has not been complied with before adding such huge amount in the consumption bill of the Complainant. It is a domestic connection and the bi-monthly consumption of the Complainant never exceeded Rs.2,000/- and in the impugned bill, the consumption shown is only 826 units whereas Rs.1,92,552/- has been added on account of arrears and the Complainant never used the electricity to such extent. Ld.counsel for the Complainant further contended that after receiving the impugned bill, the complainant approached the officials of the opposite parties to know about such exorbitant consumption bill and to correct the same, but the officials of opposite parties refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the Complainant has concealed the material facts from this District Commission and this District Commission has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. It is further contended that actually an electric connection bearing account No. TF-49/1101 was installed in the name of Inderjit Singh son of Mukthiar Singh (son of the Complainant) in the said premises and the same was permanently disconnected on account of non payment of consumption charges. Thus, the defaulting amount of previous account bearing No. TF-49/1101 is chargeable from the Complainant because said connection was installed in the premises of the Complainant and the said amount has been added in the consumption bill of the Complainant to which the Opposite Parties are entitled to recover the said amount of previous account from the Complainant. But however, we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties. First of all, the Consumer Fora/ Commission has fullest jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to excessive billing in case the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice, as per law laid down in case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and another vs. M.D. Imtiyaz-IV (2014) CPJ- 25 (Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). So, certainly this Commission has jurisdiction to decide the matter in question, particularly when the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice as discussed hereinafter.
8. Further, it is not denial of the parties that no separate prior notice has ever been issued to the Complainant before adding the impugned amount in the current consumption bill or no opportunity was ever granted to be heard to the Complainant. Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 (As notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission Vide notification No. PSERC/Secy./Reg.97 dated November 5, 2014 and Published in Govt of Gazette (Extra) dated November 5, 2014, the regulation No. 30.1.2 under the head ‘Billing Details’ mandates that the bill 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 would briefly indicate the nature and period of the arrears alongwith calculation details of such arrears.
9. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the impugned amount raised by the Opposite Parties relates to some other connection bearing account No. TF-49/1101 installed in the name of Inderjit Singh son of Mukthiar Singh in the said premises and the same was permanently disconnected on account of non payment of consumption charges and thereafter, the impugned amount has been added in the consumption bill of the Complainant. In this regard, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 1066 of 2077 decided on 30.08.2013 in case Kuldeep Singh Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, after mentioning its earlier judgement titled as “Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Garjit Kaur”, 2004(1) CLT-622 has further clarified that an amount outstanding against one connection cannot be added in the account of other connection. The relevant para No. 14 of the judgement is reproduced as under:-
14. The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the grounds that the appellant is morally liable to pay the electric bills of his father. The moral as well as pious obligation grounds are not to be considered above the law, rules and regulations. Admittedly, the electric connection bearing Account No. MT-34/17 of SP category was installed in the name of Sh. Mohinder Singh father of the appellant and a sum of Rs.45,910/- was outstanding against the connection in the name of the father of the appellant, which was not deposited and the said account number was permanently disconnected. Before installing the electric connection under domestic category bearing No.MT-34/1224 in the name of the appellant in the same premises, the officials of the respondents should have got the arrears outstanding in the name of the father of the appellant deposited, but that was not done. Sh. Avtar Singh, JE inspected the premises on 21.09.2006 and made the report, but that report is of no help to the respondents. As stated above, the official, who allowed the installation of the electric connection in the name of the appellant, should have been vigilant enough, to find out whether any arrears are outstanding against the premises where the new connection was to be installed, but that was not done and there are assumable reasons and for that, now the respondents cannot recover the same from the appellant. This Commission way back in 2004 in case “Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Garjit Kaur” (supra) held that the amount outstanding against one connection cannot be added in the account of other connection.
Moreover, in such a situation, in case any amount outstanding against the previous consumer, the PSPCL/ licensee can refuse to give connection to a defaulter/ other occupier in same premises without adjusting previous arrears. However, PSPCL can not claim the payment of arrears from the next occupier of the premises. 30.13 of (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007, Notification no. PSERC/Secy./ Regu.31 dated June 29, 2007)
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the demand of Rs.1,92,552/- raised by the Opposite Parties on account of arrears, vide bill dated 21.06.2018 (Ex.C2) from the Complainant is set aside being violative of rules and regulations and principles of natural justice and hence, the Opposite Parties are directed to withdraw the impugned amount of Rs.1,92,552/- alongwith the surcharge and penalties imposed upon it (if any). The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) to the Complainant on account of harassment, mental tension and litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the two Whole Time Members in this Commission since 15.09.2018. Moreover, the President of this Commission is doing additional duties at District Consumer Commission, Bathinda as well as Faridkot. There is only one working day in a week when the quorum of this Commission remains complete.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 29.01.2021.
