AJIT AGGARWAL PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holder of an electricity connection bearing account No.M54JK240961. The complainant has been using the electricity from the above said connection and has been paying the bills to the opposite parties regularly. It has been pleaded that the complainant has received a provisional order wherein the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.49,495/- on account of sundry charges, which is wrong and illegal. The electric connection in question is installed outside the premises of the complainant. It has been further pleaded that the complainant met the opposite parties on receipt of bill dated 3.5.2016, but they replied that the charges, which was earlier demanded from the complainant on the basis of provisional order dated 20.07.2015. It has been pleaded that the complainant made a request to the opposite parties for enhancement of load and for issuance of three phase supply to the complainant through the connection in question. The complainant also deposited an amount of Rs.3845/- on 16.7.2014 with opposite party No.2 to this effect. The opposite parties installed three phase electric meter and three phase supply to the complainant in the month of June 2015. The above said demand of the opposite parties is wrong and illegal. Hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to quash bill dated 3.5.2016 and 20.7.2015, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, C.C. 545 of 2017 //3// pain and harassment and Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply to the complaint raising certain preliminary objections interalia that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum; that the complainant was found committing theft of energy, when his meter was checked in the M.E. Lab on 18.6.2015 by the team of officials of PSPCL headed by Senior XEN Enforcement. During the checking, it was found that both the ME seals of the meter were tampered and on internal examination of the meter, it was found that the reading counter of the meter was also tampered and the complainant as such was controlling the consumption of electricity and it was found to be a case of theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act. On the basis of the checking, a notice bearing No.955 dated 20.7.2015 was sent to the complainant for payment of Rs.49,495/- besides Rs.24,000/- as compounding charges. Since the complainant did not pay the said amount inspite of the notice, the opposite party PSPCL was left with no other alternative, but to add the said amount in his bill and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount as per rules and instructions of the PSPCL. On merits, the preliminary objections have been reiterated and the other allegations of the complaint have been denied. C.C. 545 of 2017 //4//
3. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party tendered into evidence Ex.OPs/1 to Ex. OPs/5 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for 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.M54JK240961 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 a provisional order wherein the complainant was asked to deposit Rs.49,495/- on account of sundry charges, which is wrong and illegal. The electric connection in question is installed outside the premises of the complainant. Complainant met the opposite parties on receipt of bill dated 3.5.2016, but they replied that the charges, which was earlier demanded from the complainant on the basis of provisional order dated 20.07.2015. The complainant also made a request to the opposite parties for enhancement of load and for issuance of three phase supply to the complainant through the connection in question. The complainant also deposited an amount of Rs.3845/- on 16.7.2014 with opposite party No.2 to this effect. The opposite parties installed three phase electric meter and three phase supply to the C.C. 545 of 2017 //5// complainant in the month of June 2015. The above said demand is illegal and wrong.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complainant was found committing theft of energy, when his meter was checked in the M.E. Lab on 18.6.2015 by the team of officials of PSPCL headed by Senior XEN Enforcement. During the checking, it was found that both the ME seals of the meter were tampered and on internal examination of the meter, it was found that the reading counter of the meter was also tampered and the complainant as such was controlling the consumption of electricity and it was found to be a case of theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act. On the basis of the checking, a notice bearing No.955 dated 20.7.2015 was sent to the complainant for payment of Rs.49,495/- besides Rs.24,000/- as compounding charges. Since the complainant did not pay the said amount inspite of the notice, the opposite party PSPCL was left with no other alternative, but to add the said amount in his bill and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount as per rules and instructions of the PSPCL. Allegedly, the opposite parties have claimed the demand of Rs.49,495/- pertaining to checking of the meter in the M. E Lab dated 18.6.2015 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 party before raising the impugned demand/order. C.C. 545 of 2017 //6//
7. The Ld. Counsel for complainant produced copy of Electricity Supply Instruction Manual of opposite party 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 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. C.C. 545 of 2017 //7// 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.
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. In the present case, the appellants OPs have miserably failed to show that previous C.C. 545 of 2017 //8// 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. 12. Complainant in support of his claim, has also relied upon the law laid down by Honble Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (U.T.) in R.B.T. No.503 of 2007 in Appeal No.511 of 2001 decided on 17.10.2007 titled Punjab State Electricity Board, Dakha Versus Vinod Kumar Bansal that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section Electricity bill Electricity theft Report cannot be relied upon as rightly pointed out by the learned District Forum because it does not indicate in whose presence the checking was done Further more presence of the complainant is not recorded anywhere No affidavit of the person who carried out the checking to prove the contents of the checking report Held that OPs failed to establish by cogent evidence that the complainant was committing theft of energy as mentioned in the demand memo of Rs.49,495/ Therefore, this demand is illegal Learned District Forum has rightly quashed this demand. In one another authority relied upon by the complainant i.e. Punjab State Electricity Board and another Versus Sham Sunder passed in Appeal No.1293 of 2001, decided on 15th September, 2005, the Honble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has held that (i) Electricity theft Demand notice M.E. Lab report Sustainability Meter C.C. 545 of 2017 //9// was not packed and sealed on the premises in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained Complainant was not called to come present in the M.E. Lab on the day the testing of meter was to take place Demand notice on the ground of M.E. Lab report held not acceptable and liable to be quashed. (ii) Electricity theft Criminal offence has to be proved by some cogent evidence and not on the basis of inferences.
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.49,495/ pertaining to checking report is not legal. It is not understandable how opposite parties caught him committing theft of electricity through checking The opposite parties cannot take benefit of their own wrongs. All these facts prove that complainant is being harassed by opposite parties unnecessarily. C.C. 545 of 2017 //10//
10. From the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed. Accordingly, demand of opposite parties of Rs.46,495/-through bill cum show cause notice 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 18.10.2018 (Ajit Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Bhullar) Member