DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT Complaint No : 15 Date of Institution : 11.01.2016 Date of Decision : 29.06.2016 Rajinder Singh s/o Surinder Singh, s/o Hazara Singh r/o Prem Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot. ...Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman. Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Sub Urban Sub Division, Kotkapura, District Faridkot. .........Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President, Smt Parampal Kaur, Member, Sh P Singla, Member. Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant, Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs. (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 Ops to deduct illegal charges of Rs.3,048/-from disputed bill and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides litigation expenses.
2 Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having electric connection bearing a/c no. F46KL531493H (old no.F46KL530114P), which was in the name of Hazara Singh his grandfather and he got transferred the said connection in his name by depositing transfer fee on 10.10.2013. it is submitted that complainant belongs to SC category and 200 units are free to him. In November, 2015 OPs illegally disconnected his connection without giving any information and then, complainant filed complaint before this Forum and got restored his connection by the order of this Forum. In December, Ops issued a bill dt 8.12.2015, in which they added Rs.3,048/-as sundry charges without giving any notice and detail and on receiving the same, complainant immediately approached Ops and requested them to withdraw this amount but Ops declined to the genuine request of complainant. Complainant gave application to OP-2,which they refused to take and then, complainant sent the same through registered post dt 26.12.2015, but till date, they did not give any reply. Complainant is ready to pay current consumption charges, but instead of accepting his request, OPs threatened complainant to disconnect his connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount in time, 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 withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
3 Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 15.01.2016, 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 taking preliminary objections OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that complainant is not the consumer of OPs and amount in question is still due towards complainant. It is averred that bill was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the said amount. It is averred that bill for May 2014 was sent to complainant, in which old reading was 312 units and new reading was 610 units, but no amount was charged from complainant as same were free to him and in it the status of the bill was F code, meaning thereby that meter has been changed, but inadvertently, the same was showing old meter and no amount was charged in this bill. Thereafter, next bill for July, 2014 was sent with old reading 2 and new reading 1421 units. in this bill, old reading should have been 610 units and thus, after deducting 610 units from 1421 units, the bill should have been for 811 units.
400 units are free to complainant. So this bill has been charged for 411 units and therefore, sum of Rs.3,048/-has been charged on account of actual consumption of power for 411 units. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally as amount is charged as per power consumed by complainant. 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 affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 4 and closed the same.
6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh SDO as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-5 and closed the evidence.
7 The ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant is having domestic electric connection bearing a/c no.F46KL531493H (old no.F46KL530114P), which was in the name of his grandfather and he got transferred the said connection in his name by depositing requisite fee on 10.10.2013. In November, 2015 OPs illegally disconnected his connection without giving any reason and then, complainant filed complaint before this Forum and got restored his connection by the order of this Forum. In December, Ops issued a bill dt 8.12.2015, in which Rs.3,048/-were charged as sundry charges and on receiving the same, complainant immediately approached Ops and requested them to withdraw this amount but Ops declined the genuine request of complainant. Complainant gave application to OP-2, which they refused to take and then, complainant sent the same through registered post dt 26.12.2015, but till date, they did not give any reply. It is further submitted that complainant belongs to SC category and 200 units per month are free to him. Complainant made many requests to OPs to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and requested them to get deposited the current energy charges from the complainant but all in vain. The OPs have no right to demand this amount from complainant as sundry charges. All these acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and due to these acts of OPs, complainant has faced great mental tension, agony and harassment. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
8 To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide this case. The Ops have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees and complainant should approach such committees to settle his dispute, so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, they admitted that bill in question is issued by OPs and asserted that bill for May 2014 was sent to complainant, in which old reading was 312 units and new reading was 610 units, but no amount was charged from complainant as same were free to him and in it the status of the bill was F code, meaning thereby that meter has been changed, but inadvertently, the same was showing old meter and no amount was charged in this bill. Next bill for July, 2014 was sent with old reading 2 and new reading 1421 units and in this bill, old reading should have been 610 units and thus, after deducting 610 units from 1421 units, the bill should have been for 811 units. 400 units are free to complainant. So this bill has been charged for 411 units and therefore, Rs.3,048/-have been charged on account of actual consumption of power of
411 units consumed. The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complainant against the OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.
9 The case of the complainant is that he has an electric connection at his residence issued by OPs and he is regularly paying all the electricity bills to OPs but in the bill dt 8.12.2015, OPs charged Rs.3,048/-as sundry charges without giving any notice or detail of the same. There is nothing due towards him as electricity charges. The OPs charged this amount wrongly and illegally as sundry charges. In reply, OPs submitted that this amount is correctly charged as sundry charges. In fact, previous bills sent to complainant were for lesser amount than actual consumption. These bills were sent to complainant inadvertently by clerical mistake. This mistake is detected by Audit Party in their report and the amount in dispute is charged as sundry charges from complainant being difference of previous bills which were sent to him for lesser amount than actual consumption amount and Ops have every right to recover this amount from complainant. Ld counsel for complainant argued that OPs have wrongly and illegally charged this amount from complainant. There was no amount due towards complainant. OPs sent bills correctly for actual consumption and not for less consumption and complainant paid all the bills. Moreover, as per their own regulations, 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 giving detail of the amount charged, the OPs can not 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 We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.
13 As per their own regulations and instructions, OPs can not 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.
14 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.3,048/-charged by them as sundry charges. However, OPs are at liberty to recover the amount due towards complainant if any after adopting the proper procedure subject to period of limitation. 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 : 29.06.2016 Member Member President (Parampal Kaur) (P Singla) (Ajit Aggarwal) .......................