BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No.122 of 2018
Date of Institution: 19.2.2018
Date of Decision: 6.3.2019
Anoop Kumar S/o Sh. Anand Krishan R/o Village Chabba, Tehsil and District Amritsar 98766 04793
Complainant
Versus
- Chairman, PSPCL, The Mall, Patiala
- Executive Engineer, Jandiala Division, PSPCL , Amritsar
- Sub Division Officer, Sub Division Kot Mit , PSPCL, District Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Manpreet Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Munish Menon, Advocate.
Coram
Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.Charanjit Singh, President
1. Sh. Anoop Kumar, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he is permanent resident of village Chabba Tehsil and Districit Amritsar and is consumer of opposite parties having domestic electric connection bearing account No. 3002069198 having sanctioned load of 7.660. The complainant has been making payment of the bills regularly. Previously complainant approached the officials of the opposite parties with the request that his electric meter is not properly working and the same be checked from ME Lab and in this regard complainant deposited the requisite fee for checking of his electric meter , but till date the electric meter is not checked in ME Lab. The complainant now has received bill issued by the opposite parties and was astonished to know that in the said bill opposite parties have demanded Rs. 54,429/- previous arrears, the detail of which has not been provided and the complainant approached the opposite parties and enquired regarding previous arrears, but they refused to provide any detail. The complainant immediately approached the officials of the opposite parties and requested that the demand in the abovesaid bill is illegal as the complainant has been making payment of bills regularly and he also showed the previous electricity bill. As such the demand of the opposite parties is illegal and the complainant is not entitled to fulfill the abovesaid illegal demand. The said act of the opposite parties is illegal , arbitrary and against the rules and regulations of PSPCL. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite parties be directed to withdraw the impugned electricity bill whereby they raised illegal demand of Rs. 54,429/- ;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the impugned amount to the tune of Rs. 54429/- claimed by the opposite parties from the complainant pertains to charges for the regular consumption of electricity for the period 7/2013 to 12/2017 which the complainant has neglected to pay to the opposite party. Since the complainant has consumed electricity he is legally bound to make the payment for the same to the opposite parties. It was denied that complainant had been making payment of the electricity bills regularly without committing any default. It was submitted that complainant reported that the meter installed in his premises is not working properly and depositing the fee is matter of record. However, it is worth to mention here that the demand of Rs. 54429/- raised by the opposite parties is not on account of any defective meter but the same pertains to the charges for the regular consumption of electricity by the complainant for the period 7/2013 to 12/17 . It was denied that no detail of the said amount was provided to the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence .
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh. Munish Menon,Adv.counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Kulwant Singh, SDO Ex.OP1, copy of meter reading record Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite parties.
5. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has contended that complainant is consumer of opposite parties having domestic electric connection bearing account No. 3002069198 having sanctioned load of 7.660. It was the case of the complainant that he has been making payment of the bills regularly. Previously complainant approached the officials of the opposite parties with the request that his electric meter is not properly working and the same be checked from ME Lab and in this regard complainant deposited the requisite fee for checking of his electric meter , but till date the electric meter is not checked in ME Lab. The complainant now has received bill issued by the opposite parties and was astonished to know that in the said bill opposite parties have demanded Rs. 54,429/- previous arrears, the detail of which has not been provided and the complainant approached the opposite parties and enquired regarding previous arrears, but they refused to provide any detail.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground the impugned amount to the tune of Rs. 54429/- claimed by the opposite parties from the complainant pertains to charges for the regular consumption of electricity for the period 7/2013 to 12/2017 which the complainant has neglected to pay to the opposite party. Since the complainant has consumed electricity he is legally bound to make the payment for the same to the opposite parties. It was denied that complainant had been making payment of the electricity bills regularly without committing any default. It was submitted that complainant reported that the meter installed in his premises is not working properly and depositing the fee is matter of record. However, it is worth to mention here that the demand of Rs. 54429/- raised by the opposite parties is not on account of any defective meter but the same pertains to the charges for the regular consumption of electricity by the complainant for the period 7/2013 to 12/17 . It was denied that no detail of the said amount was provided to the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the opposite party remained silent about the meter challenged by the complainant for which complainant has duly paid the requisite charges, the receipt of which is Ex.CW7 on record. The only plea of the opposite party is that impugned amount to the tune of Rs. 54429/- claimed by the opposite parties from the complainant pertains to charges for the regular consumption of electricity for the period 7/2013 to 12/2017 which the complainant has neglected to pay to the opposite party, whereas the complainant has submitted that he has paid all the electricity bills issued by the opposite party. Moreover perusal of impugned bill Ex.CW6 shows that the Opposite Party has added some amount on account of arrears in this bill. However, the Opposite Party could not charge this amount from the complainant in the current electricity consumption bill without issuing prior detailed notice as per regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party. It has been held by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case PSEB Vs. Hardeep Singh 2010(2) CLT 259 that where the demand was not raised by the appellant through a separate detailed notice as required by Regulation 124.1 and added in the bill in dispute as sundry charges, there is violation of the regulation of the Opposite Party. However, the appellant is at liberty to raise fresh demand of the amount in dispute and can charge the same from the complainant by following proper procedure. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case Ishar Singli Vs. PSEB 2011 (2) CLT page 420. In the present case also, the Opposite Party has directly charged this amount from the complainant in the current electric consumption bill in dispute without serving prior notice and giving the complainant an opportunity to file the objections, if any, i.e. without giving prior opportunity of being heard to the complainant.
9. Consequently, this demand of Rs. 54,429/- raised by the Opposite Party from the complainant vide bill Ex.C-6 is not sustainable and as such, the same is hereby set aside. However, the Opposite Party is at liberty to raise this demand afresh from the complainant after following proper procedure as laid down under regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum (Charanjit Singh)
Dated: 6.3.2019 President
(Rachna Arora) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
