Complainant Rajnish Kumar through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties for rectification of the bill. He has claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant has also claimed Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that an electricity connection bearing No.G-31GT-310008M had been installed in the name of Hans Raj and he was the fore father of the complainant who had died and after his death complainant being his legal heir using the above said electricity connection and paying its bill etc. regularly and nothing was outstanding against him and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. It was pleaded that on 18.1.2016 opposite parties were issued a memo No.57 to the complainant and asked him to deposit Rs.71028/- on account of difference of unit which was totally wrong, exaggerated, arbitrarily and much more than the actual consumption made by the complainant as he never used electricity energy to this extent nor he was in arrears. It was pleaded that at the time of effecting MCO meter was not packed and sealed and the signatures of the complainant could not be obtained on it after packing the same in card box. It was pleaded that meter was not checked in any Lab. in the presence of the complainant which was mandatory as per the provisions of Electricity Act and as such the said memo was illegal, null & void and the same is liable to be rectified. It was further pleaded that after receipt of the above said memo complainant approached the opposite party no.1 and requested them to rectify the bill and to receive actual consumption charges as he never used the electricity to such an extent for the bill was issued to him. Complainant requested the opposite party no.1 to explain reason for showing such like exaggerated consumption and opposite party no.1 called him to their office time and again after a gap of 4-5 days with the assurance of rectification of the bill but after calling for about 4-5 days opposite party no.1 told the complainant that his bill was sent to higher authorities for rectification. It was also pleaded that complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to rectify the bill in question but they always put the matter on one pretext or the other that his bill was sent to concerned authority for rectification. It was next pleaded that demand raised by the opposite parties is illegal and against the rules which was not binding upon the complainant and is liable to be withdraw because complainant neither came into arrears of amount nor he consumed the electricity to such an extent and as such demand in question is liable to quashed, hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable, complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and complainant filed false and frivolous complaint against the opposite parties and complainant is liable for the special cost of Rupees Ten Thousands. On merits, it was stated that opposite parties had issued a notice memo no.57 dated 18.1.2016 in which opposite parties explained the amount regarding consumption of the units of the complainant. It was stated that meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.187/410 dated 5.6.2015 and old meter was sent to M.E.Lab with the consent of the complainant. It was further stated that the final reading of the old meter was 20566 bill was prepared (19234) and new meter was installed and first reading was 743 units the total units consumed by the complainant was 2075. It was stated that opposite parties sent a notice memo no.57 to the complainant and as per the process complainant had to file objection of the notice but he did not follow the same and file this present complaint against the opposite parties. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
5. Sh.Sukhdev Raj SDO of the opposite parties had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 along with documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
6. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides while adjudicating the present complaint.
- We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file.
- Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has received a letter Memo no.57 dated 18.1.2016 whereby he has been asked to deposit Rs.71028/- on account of difference of units which act of the Ops is totally wrong and the demand raised is much more than the actual consumption made by him.
- Counsel for the OP has argued that the old Meter of the complainant was replaced and the new meter was installed in place of old one. It was further submitted that the amount claimed is the difference of readings and as per half margin no.34 dated 13.01.2016 Ex.OP2 his account was overhauled by the audit party. The amount claimed is valid and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
- We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. We find that counsel for the OP has failed to show if any notice was issued to the consumer before overhauling his account and demanding the impugned amount from him at the time of audit. 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 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 In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajji Bai 2009(1)CLT 526 it has been held by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Para 5 of the order which states that:
“Admittedly, 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.R-1 to Ex.R-6. 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 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”.
The above instructions leave no manner of doubt that the opposite parties were duty bound to supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the above stated requirement which the opposite parties have not complied with in this case”.
11. We further draw support from a judgment passed by our own Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh, in a case reported in 2004(1) CPC 567 (PSEB Vs. Kuldip Singh) para 4 of the order of which is as follows.
“No notice was given to the complainant by the audit party before giving the report and the report is one sided. We all, thus of the opinion that OP has no lawful right to recover the amount of Rs.16,140/- and Rs.1640/- from the complainant. The complainant paid the amount only under threat of disconnection. Hence, he is entitled to refund the amount. The point is decided accordingly”.
12. So from the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down in the above cited authorities, it is clear that before over-hauling the account or demanding any amount on account of audit objection, notice is required to be given to the consumer. In the present case no such notice is proved to have been given to the complainant before overhauling his account and raising impugned demand on the basis of objections of the audit party. Consequently, the impugned demand cannot be held to be legal and valid.
13. In view of the above discussion, complaint is partly accepted and the impugned demand of Rs.71028/- vide memo no.57 dated 18.01.2016 is set-aside. Amount if deposited by the complainant be refunded forthwith besides payment of Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The compliance be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aggregate amount from the date of order till realization and proceedings u/s 27 CPA shall be initiated against the OP.
14. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
AUG. 05, 2016 Member.
*YP*
