Ashwani Kumar v. PSPC Ltd.

AJIT AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to C.C. No.118 of 2017 \\2// the opposite parties to withdraw their demand of Rs.54496/- + 18000/- claimed vide Disconnection order dated 08.09.2017 issued to account No.3002982475 installed in his name; and to pay Rs.20,000/- for harassment alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that domestic electric connection bearing account No.3002982475 has been installed in the house of complainant, meter of which, has been installed outside his house by the opposite parties as per their policy and complainant is paying all the electricity bills from time to time. The average consumption of units of billing monthly cycle is between 200/300 units. In the month of April, 2017, meter of complainant burnt due to heavy supply of electricity. He applied for new meter vide receipt No.478 dated 07.04.2017 and thereafter, opposite parties issued bills as per his consumption of electricity units. Surprisingly, complainant received Disconnection Order dated 08.09.2017, vide which, opposite partied demanded Rs.54496/- + 18000/- illegally and threatened to disconnect his electricity connection in case of non-fulfilling their demand. He approached opposite parties number of times to withdraw the abovesaid illegal demand and not to disconnect his electric connection but opposite parties did not bother his requests. The demand is illegal as he is paying all bills regularly and nothing is due against him; that he never committed any C.C. No.118 of 2017 \\3// theft of electricity; that before imposing the amount, no notice of any kind was served to him; that meter has been installed outside his house and responsibility of its safety and protection is of opposite parties; and that continuous threat of disconnection of his electric connection has affected his health. Lastly, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed joint written reply taking certain preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action and locus standie to file the present complaint; that on 07.04.2017, complainant filed application that his electric meter has been burnt and for installing of new electricity meter. The SDO allowed it directing complainant to deposit amount of burnt meter, which he deposited on 07.04.2017 vide receipt No.478. New meter was installed on 05.08.2017 and old removed meter was deposited with ME Lab on 21.08.2017 by Parminder Singh Assistant Engineer, PSPCL. As per rules & regulations of PSPCL, meter was checked by XEN, Enforcement alongwith other PSPCL officials on 04.09.2017 and it was found that both the seals were broken and body of the meter was also tempered for controlling the consumption of meter with the help of some instrument, which shows that complainant was committing theft of electric energy. So, department was directed to take action u/s 135 of PSPCL Act, 2003 and as per checking report, according to LDHF formula, an C.C. No.118 of 2017 \\4// amount of Rs.54496/- has been claimed from the complainant. On merits, electric connection in the name of complainant as mentioned in the complaint is admitted, all other allegations of complainant have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4. Parties were granted sufficient opportunities to produce evidence in order to prove their case.

5. Sh. Amit Chhabra Advocate tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copies of receipts Ex.C-2 to C-12 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6. Sh. Sanjeev Gupta Advocate tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Kuldeep Sharma, SDO Ex.OP-1/A, Copies of, notice dated 04.07.2017 Ex.OP-1/B, letter dated 08.09.2017 Ex.OP-1/C, bill-cum-show cause notice dated 08.09.2017 Ex.OP-1/D, ME Lab. Report dated 04.09.2017 Ex.OP-1/E and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the file.

8. The complainant has challenged Disconnection order dated 08.9.2017 vide which demands of Rs.54496/- + 18000/- have been raised against connection of complainant. The counsel for the opposite party argued that the old meter of the complainant was changed and was sent to M.E. Lab. C.C. No.118 of 2017 \\5// In checking dated 04.09.2017 it is found that both the seals were broken and body of the meter was also tempered for controlling the consumption with the help of some instrument, as such, complainant was committing theft of electricity and on the basis of checking report, according to LDHF formula, amount of Rs.54496/- has been claimed from the complainant.

9. The opposite parties have neither alleged nor produced any evidence that the electric meter of the complainant was removed, packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant. There is no evidence on the record that the opposite parties ever issued any notice to the complainant regarding checking of his electric meter in the M.E. Lab. Though Bill-cum-Show cause notice Ex.OP-1/D is on the file but no dispatch register or any postal receipt has been placed on the record by the opposite parties to prove that said notice was ever served upon the complainant raising the impugned demand. The opposite parties have badly failed to comply with the rules and regulations of the PSPCL regarding removing, packing and sealing the electric meter and thereafter its checking in the M.E. Lab and serving the provisional order of assessment upon the consumer. The opposite parties have straightway claimed the impugned demand through Disconnection Order Ex.C-3, which is also against the provisions of the Regulations of the PSPCL. No opportunity of being heard was provided to the complainant by the opposite parties before C.C. No.118 of 2017 \\6// raising the impugned demand/order.

10. As per regulations no.55. Replacement of Meters/Metering Equipment : 55.1 Single Phase Electromechanical Meters : E/M Meters removed from the consumer premises on replacement with the electronic meters shall be returned to M E Labs without any other formality and ME Labs will not carry out any checking/testing of these meters except in case of disputed meters. In case of disputed meters removed under code G, M & R (glass broken, meter burnt & ME seals broken) and in cases where there is sufficient evidence of theft /tampering etc at the time of removal, the JE concerned shall record his observation on the MCO itself and such meters shall be packed and sealed in the presence of consumers for further checking in M E Labs in his presence.

11. Further as per regulation no. 21.4 (d) : In case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the Licensees laboratory, the consumer would be informed of the proposed date of testing atleast seven days in advance. The signature of the consumer, or his authorized representative, if present would be obtained on the Test Result Sheet and a copy thereof supplied to consumer.

12. He further argued that moreover, as per their own regulations, opposite parties cannot charge the dues relating to previous period without C.C. No.118 of 2017 \\7// 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 served upon the complainant. So, as per their own regulations and instructions, opposite parties cannot demand this amount and cannot add this amount in current bill. The Ld. Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity supply Instruction Manual of opposite parties where regulation no. 93 is regarding payment of arrears not originally billed. Relevant regulation 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 C.C. No.118 of 2017 \\8// 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.

13. 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 cannot 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 C.C. No.118 of 2017 \\9// 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 previous reading of defective meter was correct. 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.

14. Further as per their own regulations and instructions, opposite parties 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 cannot demand the arrear in the current bill as sundry charges and in the present case, the opposite parties have failed to produce any evidence or document which proves that they issued any supplementary bill or notice C.C. No.118 of 2017 \\10// giving complete and full detail of the amount charged by them on account of checking dated 04.09.2017 in the ME Lab.

15. Another objection raised by the counsel for the opposite parties is regarding the jurisdiction of this Forum. The counsel for the opposite parties argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint. The Corporation has detected theft, on account of which, notice was issued to the consumer u/s 135 of Electricity Act and in the case of theft, this Forum has no jurisdiction. Admittedly, the complainant is consumer of opposite parties. A power meter was installed outside his house in public street. Complainant himself reported defect with the meter, as a result, same was removed by opposite parties. The meter was taken away by the official and examined in the ME Lab. It is not clear how the opposite party had issued notice for theft of energy despite the technical defect was reported by complainant himself and how they sent notice u/s 135 to complainant. The same view is taken by our Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.23137 of 2017, decided on 10.10.2017 titled "PSPCL Versus Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, S.B.S. Nagar and ors."

16. Therefore, from the above discussion, we are fully convinced with the arguments and case law produced by complainant and hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Opposite parties are directed to overhaul C.C. No.118 of 2017 \\11// the account of complainant and withdraw the demand of Rs.54496/-+ 18000/- raised by them vide Disconnection order dated 08.09.2017. The opposite parties are also directed to adjust the amount of Rs.15000/- in future bills so deposited by the complainant vide Ex.C-12 on the directions of this Forum. 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. Dated: 19-03-2018. (Ajit Aggarwal) President (Mandeep Kaur) Member