AJIT AGGARWAL PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is consuming the C.C.No.643 of 2018 //2// electricity facility in her house under account bearing No.3001409968, which was installed in the name of previous owner of the said house namely Deep Kumar son of Mani Ram and now the complainant had purchased the said house, so being beneficiary, the complainant is entitled to file the present complaint. It has been further pleaded that the complainant has been regularly paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties and nothing is due towards the complainant on account of any arrears. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant was astonished to receive bill dated 25.6.2018 for an amount of Rs.14,650/- pertaining to the account No.3001409968, which shown Rs.6602/- as sundry charges. The above said demand is wrong and illegal and hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to correct the electricity bill issued qua the aforesaid domestic electricity connection of the complainant and to charge the bill as per actual consumption, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment.
2. Opposite parties were absent despite of notice, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte. Thereafter, the opposite parties have appeared through their counsel Sh Ashwani Sharma and vide order dated 5.4.2019 the opposite party was allowed to join the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed complainant evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence Ex. OPs/1to Ex. Ops/6 and closed evidence of opposite parties
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.
5. The grievance of the complainant is that the complainant is C.C.No.643 of 2018 //3// consuming the electricity facility in her house under account bearing No.3001409968, which was installed in the name of previous owner of the said house namely Deep Kumar son of Mani Ram and now the complainant had purchased the said house, so being beneficiary, the complainant is entitled to file the present complaint and has been paying the bills to the opposite parties regularly. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant received bill dated 25.6.2018 for an amount of Rs.14,650/- pertaining to the account No.3001409968, which shown Rs.6602/- as sundry charges. The complainant approached opposite parties and requested to show the detail of above said amount including the sundry charges, but opposite party neither gave any reply to the complainant. 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 had deposited the bill for the month of 6/2014 and the same is reflected in the ledger maintained by the opposite party. In view of the fire of the computer centre of the PSPCL Chandidarh, the amount was posted twice in the account of the complainant with the result the bill of 8/2014 was negative to the tune of Rs.6620/-, whereas, the actual bill of the complainant was Rs.15,097/- as is reflected in the ledger. The consumer got the bill for Rs. 8670/- only i.e. it was less by Rs.6620/- . As per the audit of the PSPCL, the negative amount which was wrongly posted in the account of the complainant was liable to be charged from the complainant as per the half margin No.156 dated 14.8.2015. The said amount has been charged in the bill of April 2018 sent to the complainant.
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 C.C.No.643 of 2018 //4// 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.
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 C.C.No.643 of 2018 //5// 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, 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. 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, C.C.No.643 of 2018 //6// demand is not 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.6620/- raised by them vide bill dated 25-6-2018 as sundry charges 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. However, the opposite parties are at liberty to claim this amount from complainant by giving notice, subject to period of limitation. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. Announced 11.07.2019 (Ajit Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Bhullar) Member