- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA v. CHAIRMAN CUM MD PSPCL
Factual and Procedural Background
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd and others, seeking directions to correct an allegedly inflated electricity bill and compensation for harassment and mental agony. The complainant’s electric connection had been billed incorrectly since installation, with initial readings always starting at 65 units and bills issued in negative amounts in October and December 2016. In February 2017, a bill charged Rs. 2,200 as sundry arrears without prior notice or explanation. Despite repeated requests, the opposite parties (OPs) refused to correct the bill and subsequently issued an inflated bill of Rs. 3,070 in April 2017, threatening disconnection if unpaid. The complainant alleged deficiency in service due to this conduct and sought compensation of Rs. 10,000 along with litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000.
The complaint was admitted on 20.04.2017 and notices were issued to the OPs. The OPs filed a written statement admitting the issuance of the disputed bills and explained that the complainant had paid minimum charges until 10.12.2015. They alleged the bills reflected arrears for the period from 24.07.2014 to 03.04.2017 amounting to Rs. 6,247, of which Rs. 2,569 had been paid, leaving a balance of Rs. 3,678. The OPs contended that the charges were in accordance with rules and denied any deficiency in service. Both parties produced evidence and affidavits in support of their respective claims.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the opposite parties followed proper procedure in charging arrears as sundry charges without issuing a separate bill or notice detailing the charges?
- Whether the failure to provide prior notice or detailed billing constitutes deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act?
- Whether the complainant is liable to pay the arrears claimed by the opposite parties in the absence of such procedural compliance?
Arguments of the Parties
Complainant's Arguments
- The complainant argued that the bills issued did not reflect actual consumption and that arrears were charged without any prior notice or separate bill detailing the charges.
- He relied on the regulations of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) which require issuance of separate bills with complete details for arrears or under-assessments.
- He cited Regulation 93 of the PSPCL Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, which mandates separate bills and notices for arrears and states that no sum is recoverable after two years unless continuously shown as arrears.
- The complainant also cited the case of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Others Vs Dinesh Sharma (2016 (2) Consumer Law Today 429), which held that sundry charges cannot be imposed without a show cause notice and constitutes deficiency in service if not complied with.
- He asserted that the OPs failed to issue any supplementary bill or notice as required and thus cannot demand the arrear amount.
Opposite Parties' Arguments
- The OPs admitted that the complainant paid minimum charges until 10.12.2015 and that arrears were calculated for the period from 24.07.2014 to 03.04.2017.
- They contended that the arrears were charged as per rules and regulations and that the complainant is liable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 3,678.
- The OPs denied any deficiency in service and refuted allegations that the billing was improper or that they failed to follow procedure.
- They prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Others Vs Dinesh Sharma, 2016 (2) Consumer Law Today 429 | Electricity sundry charges cannot be imposed without issuing a show cause notice to the consumer; failure to do so constitutes deficiency in service. | The court relied on this precedent to hold that the OPs' failure to issue notice before charging arrears amounted to deficiency in service. |
| Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs Ashwani Kumar, 1993 (2) PLR 447 | Notice is required before imposing a penalty or charges affecting a consumer. | The court referenced this ruling to emphasize the necessity of prior notice before charging arrears or penalties. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the pleadings and evidence, noting that the complainant consistently paid consumption charges and disputed the sudden addition of Rs. 2,200 as sundry arrears in February 2017 and a further inflated bill in April 2017. The OPs admitted issuing the bills and claimed arrears for a period dating back to the connection date, but failed to produce evidence of issuing supplementary bills or notices detailing the charges as required by their own regulations. The court examined Regulation 93 of the PSPCL Electricity Supply Instruction Manual, which mandates separate bills with full details and notices for arrears, and the limitation period under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, which restricts recovery beyond two years unless continuously shown as arrears.
The court found that the OPs did not comply with these procedural requirements and thus their demand for arrears was improper. Reliance was placed on precedents emphasizing the need for prior notice before imposing charges. The failure to follow prescribed procedures was held to constitute deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the court was convinced by the complainant’s arguments and evidence and allowed the complaint.
Holding and Implications
The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to withdraw the demand for Rs. 2,506 charged as sundry arrears in the bill dated 03.04.2017.
Compliance with this order is to be made within one month of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to proceed under Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. The order does not set a new precedent but directly affects the parties by invalidating the arrear demand due to procedural deficiencies in billing and notice.
(Ajit Aggarwal, President) Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to correct the bill and for further directing them to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that electric connection bearing no.3000395607 with sanctioned load of .340 KW is installed at his premises and since installation, Ops never sent any bill as per actual consumption and in every bill initial reading of 65 units is always shown which OPs corrected after several requests by complainant. it is submitted that in October and December, 2016 OPs sent bill in minus but in bill issued in February, 2017, they charged arrears of sundry charges for Rs.2200/-for consumption of 70 units. On receiving the said bill, complainant visited the office of OPs and requested them to correct the bill, but they refused to admit his genuine request, rather in April 2017 issued another inflated bill for Rs.3070/-. Complainant made several requests to withdraw or correct the bill issued in April, 2017 but they refused to do so and threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to correct the said bill and prayed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, this complaint.
3 Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 20.04.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.
4 On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement wherein they have admitted that complainant paid minimum charges from the date of connection till 10.12.2015 and after that due to failure of Sap System, bill for Ncode was issued in the month of 2/16 for Rs.660/-. Bill for December, 2016 for 374 units showing old reading of 65 and new reading of 439 units was issued and total bill was for Rs.1626/- and in this bill rebate of Rs789/- for Ncode bill was given and amount of Rs.958/-was to be paid. It is admitted that in February bill showing 70 units for Rs.2200/-was issued and it contained previous reading of 439 units and new reading of 509 units. It is averred that connection of complainant was released on 24.07.2014 and upto 10.12.2015, minimum was charged. Account of complainant was overhauled by preparing monthly bills for the period from 24.07.2014 to 3.04.2017 for Rs.6247 and during this period, complainant paid Rs.2569/-on different dates and after adjusting the balance amount due towards complainant was Rs.3678/-. It is further averred that this amount is charges as per rules and regulations and complainant is liable to pay the same. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.
5 Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 10 and closed the same.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Santokh Singh as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to OP-5 and then, closed the evidence.
7 We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.
8 From going through the pleadings of complainant as well as OPs and through the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that since installation of meter at his premises he has been regularly paying all the consumption charges and nothing is due towards him, but OPs issued him bill in February, 2017 in which they added Rs.2200/-as arrear on account of sundry charges without giving any detail or prior notice of alleged sundry charges. Complainant approached and requested OPs to correct the said bill, but OPs did not pay any heed to his request and refused to admit his genuine request. Thereafter in April 2017, OPs again issued another inflated bill for Rs.3070/-. Complainant made several requests to them to withdraw or correct the bill issued in April, 2017 but they refused to do so and threatened to disconnect his connection, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, Ops have admitted that bill in question is issued by them. as per OPs upto 10.12.2015, complainant has paid only minimum charges and account of complainant was overhauled by preparing monthly bills for the period from 24.07.2014 to 3.04.2017 for Rs.6247 and during this period, complainant paid Rs.2569/-on different dates and after adjusting the balance amount due towards complainant was Rs.3678/-. It is further averred that this amount is charges as per rules and regulations and complainant is liable to pay the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
9 Ld Counsel for complainant argued that as per regulations of PSPCL, OPs can not charges the dues relating to previous period or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment etc or pointed out by Internal Audit or Authorised Officer without issuing a separate bill giving complete detail of the charges levied. Copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied should also be supplied to consumer but in the present case, no separate bill or notice giving complete detail of the amount charged or period of the amount ever issued to the complainant. So, as per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not demand this amount and can not add this as sundry charges in current bill. The Ld Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity supply Instruction Manual of OPs where regulation no. 93 is regarding payment of arrears not originally billed. Relevant regulations is reproduced hereunder: Payment of Arrears not Originally Billed : 93.1 There may be certain cases where the consumer is billed for some of the dues relating to previous months/years or otherwise as arrears on account of under assessment/unauthorized use of electricity or demand / load surcharge pointed out by Internal Auditor/ detected by the authorized officers either owing to negligence of the PSPCL employees or due to some defect in the metering equipment or due to application of wrong tariff/ multiplication factor or due to mistake in connection or other irregularities/malpractices etc. In all such cases, separate bills shall be issued giving complete details of the charges levied. Such charges shall be shown as arrears in the subsequent electricity bills regularly till the payment is made. Supplementary bills shall be issued separately giving complete details of the charges in regard to theft cases, slowness of meters, wrong connection of the meter and unauthorized use of electricity etc. In such cases, the copy of relevant instructions under which the charges have been levied shall also be supplied to the consumer for facilitating the quick disposal of cases by consumer forums if approached by the consumer. 93.2 Limitation: Under Section 56(2) of the Act, no sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of two year from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied.
10 The complainant further put reliance on citation 2016 (2) Consumer Law Today 429 titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Others Vs Dinesh Sharma, wherein it is held that Electricity-Sundry charges can not be charged without show cause notice to complainant. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-electricity-Sundry charges added in electricity bill of complainant-Held-No show cause notice issued to the complainant before imposing penalty-OPs have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant-In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the Electricity Act and it is deficiency in service-Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case. Para 7-The appellants have failed to show any notice issued to the complainant before imposing the penalty. Our Honble High Court has also opined in Punjab State Electricity Board and another Vs Ashwani Kumar 1993 (2) PLR 447 that notice is required before imposing the penalty and an order about person who was likely to be affected thereby. In the present case, the appellants OPs have miserably failed to show that provisional assessment made on the basis of audit report was ever served upon the complainant. In this way, they did not act as per provisions contained in the electricity Act and it is deficiency in service. Consumer can ask the service provider to give him the details on the basis of which the demand is made, which is not in the present case.
11 The Ld Counsel for complainant argued that without giving separate notice or bill clearly giving detail of the amount charged, the OPs cannot claim this amount from complainant and in the present case, the OPs did not issue any prior notice or bill for the amount charged by them as sundry charges.
12 As per their own regulations and instructions, OPs cannot charge any amount of previous dues or arrears without giving any supplementary bill or notice giving complete detail of charges and also giving copy of relevant instructions in which the charges have been levied. They can not demand the arrear in the current bill as sundry charges and in the present case, the OPs have failed to produce any evidence or document which proves that they issued any supplementary bill or notice giving complete and full detail of the amount charged by them as arrears of consumption as alleged by them.
13 Therefore, from the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Ops have not followed the proper procedure to recover the arrear as alleged by them as per their own regulations, which amounts to deficiency in service. We are fully convinced with the arguments and case law produced by complainant and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are directed to withdraw the demand for amount of Rs.2506/-charged by them as sundry charges vide bill dt 3.04.2017 Ex C-10. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room. Announced in Open Forum Dated : 19.09.2017 Member President (P Singla) (Ajit Aggarwal)
Alert