BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.364 of 2017

      Date of Instt. 03.10.2017

      Date of Decision: 03.03.2020

Kuldip Singh son of S. Bhagat Singh resident of 8, New Gobind Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       The Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

2.       The Sub Divisional Officer, Near Chick Chick House, Adarsh           Nagar, Commercial Unit No.5 (Under the Model Town, Division), Punjab State Electricity Board, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh           (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Sh. Arun Puri, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. D. R. Seth, Adv. Counsel for the OPs.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OPs are providing electricity services to the general public for consideration throughout Punjab including Jalandhar. The complainant is the owner of an electricity connection installed at his residence bearing Consumer No.J75BG292092 X and Account No.3001538361.

2.                That the complainant received a bill dated 15.12.2014 against the above said connection for an amount of Rs.6640/- with surcharge, the same was deposited by the complainant, vide receipt dated 06.01.2015 and nothing remained due against the connection, thereafter, OPs again issued bill dated 17.02.2015, but in the said bill, an amount of Rs.1,07,712/- was claimed from the complainant under the head ‘Sundry Charges’ without providing the details thereof. On the enquiry made by the complainant, no details was given to him, but was asked to deposit the amount and OP refused to accept the consumption, bill, unless the entire amount is paid. The said current consumption bill amounting to Rs.2229/- is being paid by the complainant alongwith the charge through Bankers Cheque bearing No.890402 dated 03.06.2015 drawn on the State Bank of India. Then another bill was issued by the OP dated 27.04.2015, whereby besides charging the current consumption charges against an amount of Rs.88,994/- was charged from the complainant under the head ‘Sundry Charges’. Again despite several requests, no detail was provided to the complainant of the amount claimed from him and OP refused to accept the current consumption charges unless the entire amount is paid. Ultimately, the said current consumption charges amounting to Rs.2500/- has been deposited by the complainant alongwith the fee surcharges on 02.06.2015. After that the complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel Sh. Surinder Kumar Bajaj on 03.06.2015 and RTI Application and demanded to provide the details of sundry charges and other charges as claimed by the OP from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.11500/- in favour of the OP on 25.04.2016. After that complainant approached many times in the office of the OP and requested for supply of the details of arrear of bill, but nobody was ready to listen the genuine request of the complainant and thereafter in the month of September, 2016, the complainant managed to get a photostat copy of his consumption bill amounting to Rs.20,430/-, from the door to door collection staff, whereby it is clearly mentioned that the amount of Rs.20,430/- is only stand against the complainant and complainant was ready to pay the same, but the collection clerk was not willing to issue the proper receipt of the same. After that the complainant again visited the office of the OP on each and every time of receipt of periodical bill, but OP was not willing to give him proper reply and even not ready to provide any details regarding claimed bills and further pressurized to complainant to deposit the total bill as demanded by the OP and OP flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant for providing the details thereof. Even the complainant is always ready to deposit consumption bill, but OP is always adamant to receive the total bill amount as they demanded. The complainant is still willing to pay all the legal dues if any stands against the complainant, but first OP have to provide complete details of the same and further submitted that the complainant is still willing to pay all the consumption charges of above said electricity connection bill dated 17.07.2017, if the OP will provide the details of the bill. The complainant has received an electricity bill dated 17.07.2017 for Rs.1,03,250/- payable by 27.07.2017. The OP demanded Rs.2514/- as in column of arrears of current year as Rs.2514/- and in the column of arrears of previous year Rs.92085/-. The OP is not willing to provide the details of column of previous year amount i.e. Rs.92,085/- and pressurize to complainant to deposit the said amount. The amount as shown in the column of arrears of previous year is illegal, arbitrarily without any base and against the rules and regulations of the Electricity Act. On receipt of the aforesaid bill dated 17.07.2017 immediately complainant rushed to the office of the OP No.2 and make a request to provide the detail of the arrear amount of Rs.92,085/-, but OP No.2 failed to provide any written detail of the said amount and as such, the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount as the same is not payable by him. The OPs are not authorized to charge any amount regarding any other electricity meter from the complainant without providing the detail as demanded by the complainant for the bill dated 17.07.2017. Due to the above said facts, there is deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs which gave a cause of action to file the present complaint and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to provide the complete details of the bill dated 17.07.2017 so that the complainant will able to deposit the same and also be directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment and further make a request that the said amount of Rs.92,085/- may be quashed from the bill dated 17.07.2017/-, which is illegal and further, OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.21,000/-.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared through its counsel and filed a joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the charges leveled are on account of default amount/arrears of electricity consumed by the complainant from his old electric connection Account No.Bg-29/1027 DS in his name to his new electric connection account No.Bg-29/2092 DS. As such, there is no deficiency or negligence in service on behalf of the respondents and the charges are rightly and legally charged as per rules, regulations and instructions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that this Forum does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the complainant should have approached the Dispute Settlement Committee as a competent authority of the respondent to get the dispute settled and further submitted that the complainant does not have any cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, the factum in regard to installation of electricity connection account No.Bg-29/2092 DS running in the name of the complainant is admitted and further submitted that the charges leveled are on account of default amount/arrears of Rs.82,364/- of the electricity consumed by the complainant from his old electric connection Account No.Bg-29/1027 DS in his name, which was transferred to the account No.Bg-29/1626 in the name of Sukhdev Singh son of Bhagat Singh. The said Sukhdev Singh is the brother of the complainant. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Replication not filed.

5.                In order to prove his case, the complainant alongwith his counsel tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence.

6.                Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith some documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very carefully.

8.                The main allegations of the complainant are that the OP raised a bill dated 17.02.2015, wherein the amount of Rs.1,07,712/- was claimed from the complainant under the head of ‘Sundry Charges’, not so, thereafter another bill was raised by the OP dated 27.04.2015, wherein again claimed an amount of Rs.88,994/- from the complainant under the head of ‘Sundry Charges’ and even thereafter, whenever bill issued by the complainant, the said ‘Sundry Charges’ was claimed from the complainant, but the complainant was depositing the amount of the consumed units on each occasion and ultimately, the OP issued a bill dated 17.07.2017 for an amount of Rs.1,03,250/-, whereby again claimed Rs.92,085/- as under the dead of ‘Sundry Charges’. Since 2015, the complainant is requesting to the OP to provide a detail of the amount of the ‘Sundry Charges’ arrear, but till today, the OP has not provided the detail of the said amount. The main claim of the complainant as alleged in Para No.3 of the complaint in the last lines that he is willing to pay all legal dues, if any stands against the complainant, but firstly the OPs have to provide complete details of the same. Not so, in Para No.5 the complainant again alleged that he is still ready and willing to pay all the consumption charges of the above said electricity bill dated 17.07.2017, but subject to condition that if the OP will provide the detail of the amount and even in the Prayer Clause, the relief claimed by the complainant is also same that the OPs be directed to provide a complete detail of the bill dated 17.07.2017 in regard to amount claimed under the head of ‘Sundry Charges’. Though the complainant also asked in the Prayer Clause for quashing the demand of the said amount, but the basic and primary relief claimed by the complainant is only to direct the OPs to provide the details of the bill amount dated 17.07.2017.

9.                We have considered the legal terminology raised by the OPs regarding jurisdiction of the instant Forum. The OPs categorically alleged in Para No.6 of the preliminary objections that this Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint, rather the complainant should approach to the Dispute Settlement Committee. We are not agree with the version of the OPs because as per Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has alternative remedy, he can go with the Dispute Settlement Committee or to file a complaint before the District Consumer Forum. So, accordingly, this version of the OPs having no weight in the eyes of law.

10.              In its reply, the OPs tried to explain the said disputed amount by alleging that the account of the complainant was defaulty, arrear of electricity consumed by the complainant from his old electric connection account No.Bg-29/1027 DS in his name has been shifted to his new electric connection bearing account No. Bg-29/2092 DS and as such, there is no negligence. First of all, in order to prove that the previous electric connection bearing No.Bg-29/1027 DS stood in the name of the complainant, is not proved on the file by the OPs, if the said account was in the name of the complainant, then what was the hitch to the OP to bring on the file any documentary evidence to establish that the said  account was previously running in the name of the complainant and there remained some due of electricity charges, but for the best known reason, the said record has not been brought on the file by the OP. So, the explanation regarding arrear of the amount submitted by the OPs in its reply is not satisfactory. So, accordingly, we find that there is a negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs for not providing the details of the ‘Sundry Charges’ amount as demanded through the bill dated 17.07.2017 as well as in the previous bills and thus, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for which the OP are liable to compensate the complainant.

11.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to provide the complete details of the bill amount dated 17.07.2017 to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the ‘Sundry Charges’ amount claimed by the complainant i.e. Rs.92,085/- will be automatically quashed. Further, OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment and also pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                       Jyotsna                           Karnail Singh

03.03.2020                              Member                          President