DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/278 of 16.4.2010 Decided on: 30.8.2010 Jinder Pal Jain S/o Sh.Amrit Lal R/o Gurbax Colony, Patiala District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board ,The Mall, Mall Road, Patiala through its Secretary. 2. Punjab State Electricity Board through its SDO Fort Sub Division, Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Jinder Pal Jain has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That the complainant has a domestic electric connection of 13.26 KW bearing account No.P21GC090611N installed by the opposite parties. That the complainant on 3.4.2010 received the bill for Rs.26220/- issued by the opposite parties to be paid by 16.4.2010. That in the above said bill the charges of consumption of electricity was only Rs.1864/- and an additional amount of Rs.24356/- were charged as sundry charges. That the complainant on 7.4.2010 approached the concerned SDO,P.S.E.B. and filed an application seeking the details of sundry charges levied in the above mentioned bill. That the concerned SDO,P.S.E.B. furnished the details on the same application and told that in the bill of September 2008 and November 2008, complainant consumed 3614 and 1957 units of electricity respectively. And in the bill of September 2009 and November 2009, the complainant used only 467 and 186 units of electricity. So sundry charges are levied for the less consumption in the year 2009. The energy charges are charged for the electricity which is never consumed by the complainant. That the imposing of sundry charges to the tune of Rs.24356/- is unjust and improper as the P.S.E.B. can not charge for the electricity which the complainant never consumed and complainant can not be punished/charged on the ground that he has consumed less as the complainant is free to consume the electricity as per his requirement and sweet will. Even for this bill, complainant is ready to pay the amount for actual consumption of electricity i.e. Rs.1864/- but the opposite parties are not accepting the consumption charges only and illegally demanding the sundry charges of Rs.24356/- and threatening to disconnect the connection of the complainant. That the threatened action of the opposite parties to disconnect the connection of the complainant under the garb of present bill is unjust, improper , illegal and arbitrary. The opposite parties have no right to recover amount of sundry charges levied illegally and against the law. That the complainant is suffering at the hands of the opposite parties for no fault on his part. The complainant should be compensated in terms of money to the tune of Rs.50000/-for mental harassment, agony humiliation faced by him and also for forced litigation. That the complainant suffered a great mental tension and harassment due to the said illegal act of the opposite parties. That the opposite parties have acted in deficient and negligent manner and thus there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the electricity connection bearing account No.P21GC090611N with sanctioned load 13.26 KW is installed in the premises which had become defective from 09/2009 onwards and erroneously the consumer was charged the amount in his electricity bill less for the period 9/2000 and 112000 due to an oversight whereas the complainant was required to be charged electricity consumption charges based on the average of last year corresponding period 09/2008 and 11/2008. That it was pointed out during the internal audit by the auditor vide half margin Sr.No.14 dated 15.3.2000 that the correct amount based on average of corresponding month of last year i.e. 09/2008 and 11/2008 be charged for the period of electricity bill for the period 09/2009 and 11/2009 and accordingly the above stated account of the complainant was reconciled/overhauled as per rules, regulations and as per internal audit and the amount which was charged earlier consumption of 467 units for the period 09/2009 and 186 units for the period 11/2009 was revised to be charged for the consumption units for the period 09/2008 and 11/2008 was revised to be charged for the consumption of 3614 units and 1957 units which was consumption units for the period 09/2008 and 11/2008 respectively and there is no illegality in it. That the minimum average consumption charges on the installed load after taking into of its utility by the consumer works out to be :13.26 KW x 8 hours x 30% of installed load x 60 days= 1909 units bimonthly, whereas the meter being defective during the month of 09/2009 and 11/2009 recorded erroneous and faulty reading as 467 units and 186 units only which is even less than the minimum consumption charges, works out on the basis of installed load as stated above and the same has been correctly charged from the complainant based on the average consumption of corresponding period of last year and there is no illegality in it. The complainant is liable to pay as per rules. It is admitted that the electricity bill dated 3.4.2010 has been issued to the complainant forRs.26220/- which also includes sundry charges of Rs.24306/- charged on account of reconciliation/overhauling of account of the complainant for the period 09/2009 and 11/2009 while the meter was defective as stated above. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation since the action on the part of opposite parties has been legal, bonafide and transparent in this case and there is no illegality in it. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The complainant has filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Admittedly in this case the demand has been made by the opposite parties on the basis of objections raised by the audit party. The opposite parties have placed on record the documents containing estimate of the additional demand made,Exs.R2 and R3.It is clear from the material placed on record that the opposite parties have not cared to follow the relevant instructions contained in para No.s2&3 of the Sales Circular No.27/96 which reads 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 are 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. 7. The present demand made had been raised in the bill,Ex.C3 dated 3.4.2010 as sundry charges along with energy consumption charges payable on 20.4.2010.The opposite parties while issuing the demand on the basis of audit report had totally ignored the above stated provisions. 8. The bill,Ex.C12 dated 29.1.2008 is for the period 14.11.2007 to 14.1.2008.The bill,Ex.C5 dated 30.3.2008 is for the period 14.1.2008 to 14.3.2008. The bill,Ex.C10 dated 2.6.2008 is from 14.3.2008 to 14.5.2008.The bill,Ex.C14 is dated 2.8.2008 and is for the period 14.5.2008 to 4.7.2008.The bill,Ex.C15 dated 4.10.2008 is for the period 4.7.2008 to 6.9.2008. The bill,Ex.C11 dated 2.12.2008 is for the period 6.9.2008 to 6.11.2008.Bill,Ex.C6 dated 31.1.2009 is for the period 6.11.2008 to 6.1.2009.Bill,Ex.C4 dated 30.3.2009 is for the period 6.1.2009 to 6.3.2009 . Billl,Ex.C7 dated 31.5.2009 is for the period 6.3.2009 to 6.5.2009. Bill,Ex.C13 dated 1.8.2009 is for the period 6.5.2009 to 6.7.2009.The bill,Ex.C8 dated 3.10.2009 is for the period 6.7.2009 to 5.9.2009 and bill, Ex.C9 dated 5.12.2009 is for the period 5.9.2009 to 5.11.2009. All these bills go to show that they have been issued on the basis of actual consumption. No bill as discussed above was issued on average basis. The bill,Ex.C3 dated 3.4.2010 which is the disputed bill has been issued on average basis. Although the bill shows the old reading as 35280 and new reading as 35286 .The consumption has been shown 441 units. The bill further shows an amount of Rs.24356/- as sundry charges. The perusal of the bill,Ex.C3 does not show as to which period this amount pertains to. No details of this amount have been mentioned by the opposite parties. The case of opposite parties is that it was pointed out during the internal audit by the auditor vide half margin Sr.No.14 dated 15.3.2009 that the correct amount based on average of corresponding month of last year i.e. 09/2008 to 11/2008 be charged for the period of electricity bill for the period 9/2009 to 11/2009 and accordingly the account of the complainant was overhauled as per rules , regulations and as per the internal audit and the amount which was charged earlier consumption of 467 units for the period 9/2009 and 186 units for the month 11/2009 was revised be charged for the consumption of 3614 units and 1957 units which was consumed units for the period 9/2008 and 11/2008 respectively and that there is no illegality in it. However, in the present case 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&3 of the Sales Circular No.27/96.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. 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 are given to the complainant before imposing penalty in such cases. Before imposing penalty etc. notice is required to be given to the consumer to explain his position. The opposite parties while issuing the demand on the basis of audit report have totally ignored the above stated provisions. The demand of Rs.24356/- as sundry charges made in the bill,Ex.C3 dated 3.4.2010 payable upto 20.4.2010 issued to the complainant on the face of record is illegal and unjustified. On this point we are supported by the authority Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Verus Rajji Bai 2009(1) CLT 526. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions we are clearly of the view that the opposite parties have failed to establish their case. We are also of the clear view that the opposite parties have unnecessarily drawn the complainant into prolonged litigation. 10. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.2000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:30.8.2010. President Member DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/278 of 16.4.2010 Decided on: 30.8.2010 Jinder Pal Jain S/o Sh.Amrit Lal R/o Gurbax Colony, Patiala District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board ,The Mall, Mall Road, Patiala through its Secretary. 2. Punjab State Electricity Board through its SDO Fort Sub Division, Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Jinder Pal Jain has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That the complainant has a domestic electric connection of 13.26 KW bearing account No.P21GC090611N installed by the opposite parties. That the complainant on 3.4.2010 received the bill for Rs.26220/- issued by the opposite parties to be paid by 16.4.2010. That in the above said bill the charges of consumption of electricity was only Rs.1864/- and an additional amount of Rs.24356/- were charged as sundry charges. That the complainant on 7.4.2010 approached the concerned SDO,P.S.E.B. and filed an application seeking the details of sundry charges levied in the above mentioned bill. That the concerned SDO,P.S.E.B. furnished the details on the same application and told that in the bill of September 2008 and November 2008, complainant consumed 3614 and 1957 units of electricity respectively. And in the bill of September 2009 and November 2009, the complainant used only 467 and 186 units of electricity. So sundry charges are levied for the less consumption in the year 2009. The energy charges are charged for the electricity which is never consumed by the complainant. That the imposing of sundry charges to the tune of Rs.24356/- is unjust and improper as the P.S.E.B. can not charge for the electricity which the complainant never consumed and complainant can not be punished/charged on the ground that he has consumed less as the complainant is free to consume the electricity as per his requirement and sweet will. Even for this bill, complainant is ready to pay the amount for actual consumption of electricity i.e. Rs.1864/- but the opposite parties are not accepting the consumption charges only and illegally demanding the sundry charges of Rs.24356/- and threatening to disconnect the connection of the complainant. That the threatened action of the opposite parties to disconnect the connection of the complainant under the garb of present bill is unjust, improper , illegal and arbitrary. The opposite parties have no right to recover amount of sundry charges levied illegally and against the law. That the complainant is suffering at the hands of the opposite parties for no fault on his part. The complainant should be compensated in terms of money to the tune of Rs.50000/-for mental harassment, agony humiliation faced by him and also for forced litigation. That the complainant suffered a great mental tension and harassment due to the said illegal act of the opposite parties. That the opposite parties have acted in deficient and negligent manner and thus there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the electricity connection bearing account No.P21GC090611N with sanctioned load 13.26 KW is installed in the premises which had become defective from 09/2009 onwards and erroneously the consumer was charged the amount in his electricity bill less for the period 9/2000 and 112000 due to an oversight whereas the complainant was required to be charged electricity consumption charges based on the average of last year corresponding period 09/2008 and 11/2008. That it was pointed out during the internal audit by the auditor vide half margin Sr.No.14 dated 15.3.2000 that the correct amount based on average of corresponding month of last year i.e. 09/2008 and 11/2008 be charged for the period of electricity bill for the period 09/2009 and 11/2009 and accordingly the above stated account of the complainant was reconciled/overhauled as per rules, regulations and as per internal audit and the amount which was charged earlier consumption of 467 units for the period 09/2009 and 186 units for the period 11/2009 was revised to be charged for the consumption units for the period 09/2008 and 11/2008 was revised to be charged for the consumption of 3614 units and 1957 units which was consumption units for the period 09/2008 and 11/2008 respectively and there is no illegality in it. That the minimum average consumption charges on the installed load after taking into of its utility by the consumer works out to be :13.26 KW x 8 hours x 30% of installed load x 60 days= 1909 units bimonthly, whereas the meter being defective during the month of 09/2009 and 11/2009 recorded erroneous and faulty reading as 467 units and 186 units only which is even less than the minimum consumption charges, works out on the basis of installed load as stated above and the same has been correctly charged from the complainant based on the average consumption of corresponding period of last year and there is no illegality in it. The complainant is liable to pay as per rules. It is admitted that the electricity bill dated 3.4.2010 has been issued to the complainant forRs.26220/- which also includes sundry charges of Rs.24306/- charged on account of reconciliation/overhauling of account of the complainant for the period 09/2009 and 11/2009 while the meter was defective as stated above. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation since the action on the part of opposite parties has been legal, bonafide and transparent in this case and there is no illegality in it. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The complainant has filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Admittedly in this case the demand has been made by the opposite parties on the basis of objections raised by the audit party. The opposite parties have placed on record the documents containing estimate of the additional demand made,Exs.R2 and R3.It is clear from the material placed on record that the opposite parties have not cared to follow the relevant instructions contained in para No.s2&3 of the Sales Circular No.27/96 which reads 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 are 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. 7. The present demand made had been raised in the bill,Ex.C3 dated 3.4.2010 as sundry charges along with energy consumption charges payable on 20.4.2010.The opposite parties while issuing the demand on the basis of audit report had totally ignored the above stated provisions. 8. The bill,Ex.C12 dated 29.1.2008 is for the period 14.11.2007 to 14.1.2008.The bill,Ex.C5 dated 30.3.2008 is for the period 14.1.2008 to 14.3.2008. The bill,Ex.C10 dated 2.6.2008 is from 14.3.2008 to 14.5.2008.The bill,Ex.C14 is dated 2.8.2008 and is for the period 14.5.2008 to 4.7.2008.The bill,Ex.C15 dated 4.10.2008 is for the period 4.7.2008 to 6.9.2008. The bill,Ex.C11 dated 2.12.2008 is for the period 6.9.2008 to 6.11.2008.Bill,Ex.C6 dated 31.1.2009 is for the period 6.11.2008 to 6.1.2009.Bill,Ex.C4 dated 30.3.2009 is for the period 6.1.2009 to 6.3.2009 . Billl,Ex.C7 dated 31.5.2009 is for the period 6.3.2009 to 6.5.2009. Bill,Ex.C13 dated 1.8.2009 is for the period 6.5.2009 to 6.7.2009.The bill,Ex.C8 dated 3.10.2009 is for the period 6.7.2009 to 5.9.2009 and bill, Ex.C9 dated 5.12.2009 is for the period 5.9.2009 to 5.11.2009. All these bills go to show that they have been issued on the basis of actual consumption. No bill as discussed above was issued on average basis. The bill,Ex.C3 dated 3.4.2010 which is the disputed bill has been issued on average basis. Although the bill shows the old reading as 35280 and new reading as 35286 .The consumption has been shown 441 units. The bill further shows an amount of Rs.24356/- as sundry charges. The perusal of the bill,Ex.C3 does not show as to which period this amount pertains to. No details of this amount have been mentioned by the opposite parties. The case of opposite parties is that it was pointed out during the internal audit by the auditor vide half margin Sr.No.14 dated 15.3.2009 that the correct amount based on average of corresponding month of last year i.e. 09/2008 to 11/2008 be charged for the period of electricity bill for the period 9/2009 to 11/2009 and accordingly the account of the complainant was overhauled as per rules , regulations and as per the internal audit and the amount which was charged earlier consumption of 467 units for the period 9/2009 and 186 units for the month 11/2009 was revised be charged for the consumption of 3614 units and 1957 units which was consumed units for the period 9/2008 and 11/2008 respectively and that there is no illegality in it. However, in the present case 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&3 of the Sales Circular No.27/96.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. 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 are given to the complainant before imposing penalty in such cases. Before imposing penalty etc. notice is required to be given to the consumer to explain his position. The opposite parties while issuing the demand on the basis of audit report have totally ignored the above stated provisions. The demand of Rs.24356/- as sundry charges made in the bill,Ex.C3 dated 3.4.2010 payable upto 20.4.2010 issued to the complainant on the face of record is illegal and unjustified. On this point we are supported by the authority Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Verus Rajji Bai 2009(1) CLT 526. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions we are clearly of the view that the opposite parties have failed to establish their case. We are also of the clear view that the opposite parties have unnecessarily drawn the complainant into prolonged litigation. 10. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.2000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:30.8.2010. President Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
