BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.128 of 2015

Date of Instt. 27.03.2015

Date of Decision :14.10.2015

Sohan Lal aged about 68 years son of Swaran Chand R/o Village Dhada, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation, Rurka Kalan, District Jalandhar.

2. XEN, Punjab State Power Corporation, Gorayan, District Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Hukam Chand Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Rajat Chopra Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is consumer of electricity under opposite parties and is having electricity account No.N36RN630I39P. He has been paying the electricity consumption charges regularly. The complainant belongs to Ad-dharmi community and as such he moved an application for having the concession in the electric charges applicable to the members of Seduled Caste and also applied for 0.58 kilowatt load(K.W). The request of the complainant was acceded and the load was fixed at 0.58KW. It was all done on the application moved by the complainant on 27.12.2007. Prior to this there was electric connection in the name of the father of the complainant. On the death of Sh.Swaran Chand father of the complainant, both the brothers by mutual consent separated from each other and started a separate mess, and the house was also partitioned amoung the brothers. The brother of the complainant is also having a separate electric connection bearing No.N36RN6306I6L. He has also availed the concession available to the members of Seduled Caste. He is paying separate bill for the consumption of electricity. To the utter surprise of the complainant, the complainant received a bill of the amount of Rs.41120/- payable by due date and beyond the due date a sum of Rs.41858/-. This bill is dated 9.3.2015. The current charges in the bill are shown as Rs.229/- and the arrears and an excess amount of Rs.36905/- plus Rs.4215/- are shown as excess than the actual charges. No details of the arrears of the amount as shown in the bill have been elaborated in the bill in question. The complainant is a poor person and is not able to pay such a big amount as demanded illegally by the opposite parties. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned bill. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel Sh.Chandan Deep Singh Advocate who filed memo of appearance on 17.4.2015 but did not file any written reply and subsequently withdraw the instructions on behalf of the opposite parties on the ground that he has resigned from the penal of advocates of the power corporation. Thereafter, fresh notice vide order dated 20.7.2015 was issued to the opposite parties but nobody appeared on behalf of opposite parties inspite of service and as such they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.8.2015.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW/A and Ex.CW/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C28 and closed evidence.

4. However, when the case was fixed for orders, Sh.Rajat Chopra Advocate appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and moved an application for putting the file and seeking permission for rebuttal evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. On 6.10.2015 arguments were heard and case was adjourned to 14.10.2015 for orders. However, subsequently, on 8.10.2015 counsel for the opposite parties appeared and filed an application for permission to lead rebuttal evidence. When the opposite parties have been proceeded against exparte and the case has been fixed for orders, the opposite parties are not entitled to lead any rebuttal evidence. Consequently, the above said application is dismissed.

7. Ex.C2 is impugned bill dated 19.3.2015 for Rs.41120/-. In this bill some amount of Rs.36905/- plus Rs.4215/- are added. This amount appears to pertain to some previous period. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that firstly, the load of the complainant was more and by giving application the same was got reduced. He further contended that any consumer who belong to Seduled Caste is not entitled to concession of 200 units if he has got reduced his original load. He further contended that the above said amount in the impugned bill is on account of arrears of consumption as the complainant was not entitled to concession of 200 units as per rules as he has got reduced his load to bring it within the prescribed limit. We have carefully considered the above contentions advanced by learned counsel for the opposite parties. Counsel for the complainant contended that alongwith application for permission to lead rebuttal evidence, the opposite parties have attached one memo No.55 dated 21.1.2015 relating to complainant and from the perusal of the same it is evident that the amount of Rs.41188/- is being claimed from the complainant on account of audit objection. It is well settled that where some amount is to be claimed from the consumer on the ground of some audit objection then an opportunity of hearing should be given to the consumer to explain his position. Without giving any opportunity to the consumer and directly demanding amount on the basis of audit objection is in violation of principles of natural justice. In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajji Bai 2009 (1) CLT page 526, it has been held by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in para 5 of the orders that:-

"The learned counsel representing the appellants while assailing the order of the District Forum dated 12.12.2007 mainly contended that the District Forum overlooked the factual position brought on record and for that reason the order of the District Forum deserved to be set aside. There is hardly any force in the submission made. Accordingly, in this case demand has been made by the opposite parties on the basis of objection raised by the Audit Party. The opposite parties have placed on record the documents containing estimate of the additional demand made Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. It is clear from the material placed on record that the opposite parties have not cared to follow the relevant instructions contained in para Nos. 2 and 3 of the Sales Circular No.27/96 which read as under:-

"It is regular feature in the Electricity Board that Audit parties audit the consumer's account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party. It is understood that whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party, the SDO concerned is required to check the report but in practice the penalty is imposed without any cross checking by the SDO concerned. Before imposing penalty, etc., notice is required to be given to the consumer to explain his position.

"The requirement of law is that proper prescribed procedure is to be followed and before imposing penalty on the consumer notice is required to be issued to the consumer. It should be ensured that seven days is given to the consumer before imposing penalty in such cases."

8. So from the memo attached with the above said application it is evident that the above said amount is being demanded from the complainant on account of some audit objection. There is no evidence on record from the opposite side to show that any notice of personal hearing was given to the consumer to show cause against the amount pointed out by the audit party as due from him. In our opinion, the demand of above said amount from the complainant without issuing any notice to the complainant to explain his position is wrong and arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.

9. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and the impugned amount in the above said bill is set-aside. However, the opposite parties at liberty to give an opportunity to the complainant to explain his position by giving show cause notice to him and after affording him an opportunity as aforesaid the opposite parties may raise fresh demand, if need be. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

14.10.2015 Member Member President