BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR. C.C. No. 137 of 2017

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR. C.C. No. 137 of 2017 Date of Institution: Date of Decision: Tehal Singh aged 63 years son of Lachhman Singh, resident of Faridkot Road, Guruharsahai, Tehsil Guruharsahai, Distt. Ferozepur Mobile No Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through SDO City Guruharsahai. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. Guruharsahai, Distt. Ferozepur.... Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, * * * * * PRESENT For the complainant : Sh R.K. Monga Advocate For the opposite parties : Sh Ashwani Sharma Advocate QUORUM Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President. Sh Baldev Singh Bhullar, Member,

2 C.C. No.137 of 2017 //2// ORDER AJIT AGGARWAL PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the complaint are that an electric meter connection bearing account No.M53GT530039H has been installed in the house of the complainant and has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the opposite parties. It has been pleaded that the complainant received a bill dated for Rs.97,950/, which is wrong and illegal. It has been pleaded that the complainant never committed any theft of electricity. The opposite parties have not issued any notice regarding recovery of any amount from the complainant. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to withdraw the above said bill, to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.5500/- 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. The complainant has not paid the consumption charges of the electricity consumed by him since long and the arrears as such has been accumulating; that Rs.46,399/- was charged from the complainant on account of difference of reading in the ledger and the reading as per store challan on account of D-code. The said amount was charged by the Audit vide half margin No.52, resultantly the amount challenged in the present complaint pertains to the actual units of consumption of electricity since November 2015 and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount as per rules and instructions; 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

3 C.C. No.137 of 2017 //3// objections have been reiterated and the other allegations of the complaint have been denied. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties tendered into evidence Ex.OPs/1 to Ops/3 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite parties. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file. 5. The complainant has challenged bill dated Ex.C-2 for Rs. 97,950/-. The plea of the opposite parties is that the complainant has not paid the consumption charges of the electricity consumed by him since long and the arrears has been accumulating. Rs.46,399/- was charged from the complainant on account of difference of reading in the ledger and the reading as per store challan on account of D-code. The said amount was charged by the Audit vide half margin No.52, resultantly the amount challenged in the present complaint pertains to the actual units of consumption of electricity since November 2015 and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount as per rules and instructions. 6. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to show that the electric meter of the complainant was removed, packed and sealed in the presence and under signatures of the complainant or his representative and the electric meter was never checked in the M.E. Lab in the presence of the complainant or his representative. Therefore, it is crystal clear that no procedure has been adopted by the opposite parties framed under the Rules and Regulations of the P.S.P.C.L. regarding removing, packing, sealing and checking of the defective electric meter

4 C.C. No.137 of 2017 //4// in the M.E. Lab and thereafter raising the demand arising out of the said checking, if any. 7. 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. Further as per regulation no (d) : In case of testing of a meter removed from the consumer premises in the Licensee s 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. 8 He further argued that moreover, as per their own regulations, OPs can not charges the dues relating to previous period 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 amount in current in current bill. The Ld Counsel for complainant produced

5 C.C. No.137 of 2017 //5// 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 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.

6 C.C. No.137 of 2017 //6// 9 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 Hon ble 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. 10 Further 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

7 C.C. No.137 of 2017 //7// 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. 11 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. Ops are directed to overhaul the account of complainant and withdraw the demand of Rs.46,399/- as difference of reading of old meter and correct the bill and OPs are further directed to adjust the amount or Rs.40,000/- deposited by complainant with Ops vide order dated of this Forum in the subsequent bills. 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 (Ajit Aggarwal) President (Baldev Singh Bhullar) Member