Gopal singh v. Punjab Sate Power Corporation Limitied

AJIT AGGARWAL PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holder of domestic electric connection bearing account No.3000505084 with sanctioned load of 8.060 K.W, which is installed outside his premises situated at Gandhi Nagar, Jalalabad, District. It has been pleaded that the complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the opposite party. Further it has been pleaded the complainant received an electricity bill dated 13.1.2018 for an amount of Rs.9440/-, which includes a sum of Rs.5780/- as sundry charges. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 and requested to show the detail of aforesaid amount including the sundry chares of Rs.5780/- and to rectify the electricity bill of such a huge amount against sanctioned load of only 8.06 K.W. It has been further pleaded that complainant sought necessary information under the Right to Information Act. However, opposite party No.2 gave vague reply bearing letter No.179 dated 1.2.2018 and charged a sum of Rs.14,139/- without any legal justification. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and requested that he is ready to deposit the actual consumption charges, but the opposite party No.2 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and C.C.No.140 of 2018 //3// unfair trade practice, hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to quash the impugned demand of Rs.5780/- charged in electricity bill dated 13.1.2018 and Rs.14,139/- charged vide letter No.179 dated 1.2.2108, to release the electric connection, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony pain and harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite party has appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint raising certain preliminary objections interalia that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum; that on the account of introduction of the newly introduced SAP system in the PSPCL, the details of the amount of electricity bills paid by the complainant and to be charged from the complainant. The said information was also conveyed to the complainant vide memo No.179 dated 1.2.2018; that complicated question of law and facts are involved in the present complaint and that the present complaint is false, and frivolous. On merits, the preliminary objections have been reiterated and the other allegations of the complaint have been denied.

3. Complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed her evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence Ex.OPs/1 to Ex.OPs/6 and closed evidence on behalf of the opposite parties. C.C.No.140 of 2018 //4//

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.

5. The grievance of the complainant is that he is holder of an electricity connection bearing account No.3000505084 and has been using the electricity from the above said connection and has been paying the bills to the opposite parties regularly. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant received electricity bill dated 13.1.2018 Rs.9440/-, which includes a sum of Rs.5780/- as sundry charges. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 and requested to show the detail of above said amount including the sundry charges, but opposite party No.2 neither gave any reply to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that opposite party No.2 gave vague reply bearing letter No.179 dated .1.2.2018 and charged a sum of Rs.14,139/- without any legal justification. The above said demand is illegal and wrong.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that on the account of introduction of the newly introduced SAP system in the PSPCL, the details of the amount of electricity bills paid by the complainant and to be charged from the complainant. The said information was also conveyed to the complainant vide memo No.179 dated 1.2.2018.

7. The Ld. Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual of opposite party where regulation no. 93 is C.C.No.140 of 2018 //5// 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 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 C.C.No.140 of 2018 //6// such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied.

8. The complainant has 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 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. 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. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that before raising the demand of amount in question, C.C.No.140 of 2018 //7// the opposite parties did not issue any notice giving the detail of the amount charged and without issuing any notice they cannot be charged any amount as arrears or whatsoever. Moreover as per memo No.179 dated 1.2.2018, which is supplied by the opposite parties in response of R.T.I. demanded by the complainant , they alleged that the amount in question is charged as arrear regarding the period 8.9.2014 to 29.7.2015, whereas, the amount in question first time added in the bill dated 13.1.2018 i.e. after more than two years. As per their own regulations of the opposite parties, they cannot raise any demand after a period of two years such sum become dues. As such such demand is beyond the period of limitation and the opposite parties cannot demand this amount.

9. Further as per their own regulations and instructions, opposite party 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 party 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 on account of checking. Therefore, we are fully convinced with the arguments and case law produced by complainant and hence, demand of Rs.5780/- charged in electricity bill dated 13.1.2018 and Rs.14,139/- charged vide letter No.179 dated 1.2.2018 are not C.C.No.140 of 2018 //8// legal. All these facts prove that complainant is being harassed by opposite parties unnecessarily.

10. From the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed. Accordingly, demand of opposite parties of Rs.19,919/- raised by them vide bill dated 13.1.2018 and memo dated 1.2.2018 is hereby quashed This order is directed to be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of its copy, 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. Announced 11.1.2019 (Ajit Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Bhullar) Member