DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT, AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/127

Date of Institution   : 20.2.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 07.06.2022

Ivneet Singh s/o S. Bhupinder Singh carrying on business at 34-35, New Golden Avenue, Amritsar. 

                 …Complainant Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through the SDO (Commercial) City Centre Sub Division, Amritsar. 

     …Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As Amended Upto Date.

Present: Sh. S.K. Sharma Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. B.S. Sachdeva Adv counsel for O.P.

Quorum:-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg  : Member 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT): 

1. The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) against the PSPCL (hereinafter referred as opposite party)

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had obtained an electric connection bearing account No. 3002879011 (New) C15SP210212Y (Old) under SP category. The above said connection is used for earning livelihood by way of self-employment with the help of his father and one employee. The complainant regularly paying the consumption charges as per bills. The complainant was shocked to receive a memo No. 416 dated 8.2.2018 claiming an amount of Rs. 63,207/-. After receipt of memo the complainant approached the sub division and showed them the previous bills. In reply the opposite party informed that the memo was issued due to defective shunt capacitor installed in his business premises. No notice regarding the removal of defect in shunt capacitor has been received by the complainant. The opposite party threatened to disconnect the connection in case amount not deposit. As per CC No. 26/2016 and ESIM General Condition of Tariff Annexure II Section 4 S-III-8 In case shunt capacitors are found to be missing or damaged a fifteen days notice shall be issued to the consumer for rectification of the same. In case defective capacitors are not replaced/rectified within fifteen days of the issue of notice, surcharge and the rate of 20% on bill amount shall be levied for the proceeding two months and it shall continue to be levied till the defective capacitors are replaced/rectified to the satisfaction of the PSPCL. In case the capacitors are found to be of Inadequate rating, the capacitor surcharge shall be levied on pro rata basis. The complainant requested the opposite party to withdraw the memo but to no effect which is deficiency in service.  Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to withdraw the impugned memo dated 8.2.2018 of Rs. 63,207/-.    

2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

4) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled.

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds of no cause of action, maintainability, complaint is bad in law, act and conduct, complaint is frivolous and baseless, suppressed of material facts, jurisdiction etc. 

4. On merits, it is submitted that the during checking of the account of the Harvinder Singh vide half margin No. 85 dated 15.12.2017 it was found that the monthly power factor of the consumer for a period 9.3.2017 to 10.11.2017 is found below then 0.90 as per the General conditions of tariff. If the monthly power factor falls below 0.90 then the consumer shall pay on the average bill amount a surcharge of 1% for each 0.01 decrease in the monthly power factor below 0.90. The consumer shall be 2% for each 0.01 decrease of monthly power average factor below 0.80. In the present case the monthly power factor of consumer was below 0.80 and show cause notice was regularly issued to the consumer, but of no use. So, as per circular of general conditions consumer is liable to pay surcharge @ 2% for each 0.01 decrease of monthly power average factor below 0.80. The above said memo was issued as per rules. The connection is used for commercial purpose so this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The memo No. 416 dated 8.2.2018 for an amount of Rs. 63,207/- is legal and genuine. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint. 

5. In order to prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of the memo Ex.C-2, copy of sale deed Ex.C-3, copy of letters Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, copies of bills Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-8, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-9, copy of bill Ex.C-10 and its payment receipt Ex.C-11, copy of judgment of Hon'ble High Court Ex.C-12, copies of ESIM Ex.C-13 and Ex.C-14, copy of judgment Ex.C-15, copy of judgment of Hon'ble National Commission Ex.C-16 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case of complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Vipan Vig Ex.O.P-1, copy of half margin Ex.O.P-2, copy of memo No. 416 Ex.OP-3, copy of account statement Ex.O.P-4 and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the parties. 

8. The complainant has alleged that the complainant obtained an electric connection bearing Account No. 3002879011 under SP category. The said connection has been used by the complainant with the help of his father and one employee for earning his livelihood by way of self employment. The complainant was shocked and surprised to receive a memo No. 416 dated 8.2.2018 claiming an amount of Rs. 63,207/- from the opposite party.  

9. That as per CC No. 26/2016 and ESIM General Condition of Tariff AnnexureII Section 4 S-III-8 “In case shunt capacitors are found to be missing or inoperative or damaged a fifteen days notice shall be issued to the consumer for rectification of the same and setting right the same.  In case defective capacitors are not replaced/rectified within fifteen days of the issue of notice, surcharge and the rate of 20% on bill amount shall be levied for the proceeding two months and it shall continue to be levied till the defective capacitors are replaced/rectified to the satisfaction of the PSPCL. In case the capacitors are found to be of Inadequate rating, the capacitor surcharge shall be levied on pro-rata basis. Moreover, memo No. 416 dated 8.2.2018 has been issued on the directions of the audit party but as per law the audit party has no right to claim any amount from the consumer.”

10. On the other hand the opposite party alleged that the consumers are required to maintain the PF Ratio at 0.90 and in case said ratio comes out to be less to the prescribed ratio such consumers are liable to pay power factor surcharge and if the said ratio exceeds the prescribed ratio such consumers are entitled incentives/rebate in the bill amount. The bills issued by the department to the consumers including the complainant contained a column in which the power factor ratio is specifically mentioned and as such the complainant was aware of the fact that the power factor is not being maintained by him. However, complainant has nowhere alleged that he had no knowledge about the maintenance of power factor and he had no knowledge about the prescribed ratio of power factor which was required to be maintained by him. The only ground propounded by the complainant in the present complaint is that the opposite party has not issued 15 days notice to the complainant before raising the impugned demand. 

11. From the appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case the only case of the complainant that the opposite party issued memo No. 416 dated 8.2.2018 for an amount of Rs. 63,207/- on the direction of the audit party. Copy of memo is Ex.C-2. When on the receipt of said memo the complainant approached the opposite party, the opposite party informed that the memo was issued due to in operative/defective shunt capacitor. The complainant alleged that no separate notice regarding the removal of the defect in the shunt capacitor was received by the complainant which was against the circular of the opposite party vide CC No. 26/2016 and ESIM  (General Condition of Tariff). However, perusal of the file shows that no such 15 days notice was ever issued to the complainant before raising said demand vide memo No. 416. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant is not consumer of the opposite party as the connection in question is running in the name of  Harinder Singh. But on the perusal of the file it established that the premises in question is purchased by the complainant vide copy of sale deed Ex.C-3. Therefore, the complainant is the beneficiary of the electric connection in question so he is consumer of the opposite party.  

12. Reliance has placed upon Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Anr Versus Rajji Bai 2009 (1) CLT-526 wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in para No. 5 of the orders that.-

“It is regular feature in the Electricity Board that Audit Parties audit the consumer's account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party. It is understood that whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party the SDO concern is required to check the report but in practice the penalty is imposed without any cross checking by the SDO concerned. Before imposing penalty etc. notice is required to be given to consumer to explain his position.”

13. Further, reliance has been placed upon M/s Kundan Mill Board and Paper Mills and another Versus Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others 2014(2) Civil Court Cases-44 of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein it has been held as under.-

“We may notice that any internal audit objection is only an opinion and cannot be itself a justification for raising of a supplementary or initial bill.”

14. In view of the above discussion and law laid down mentioned above, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to withdraw the memo No. 416 dated 8.2.2018 for Rs. 63,207/-. Opposite party is also directed to adjust the amount if any deposited by the complainant against the said memo in future bills. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        7th Day of June 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member