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

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/128

Date of Institution   : 20.2.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision    : 07.06.2022

Smt. Manju Khera wife of Late Sh. Sunil Khera Prop. of M/s Sunil Kumar Sushil Kumar carrying on business at Bazaar Loharan,  Amritsar. 

                 …Complainant Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through the SDO (Commercial), Gold Temple Sub Division, Industrial 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. Manohar Singh 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. 3002880374 (New) C37SP210082Y (Old) under SP category. The above said connection was used by her husband Sunil Khera and after his death she being wife is using the said connection for earning livelihood by way of self-employment. The complainant regularly paying the consumption charges as per bills. The complainant was shocked to receive a bill dated 18.1.2018 of Rs. 50,130/- in which an amount of Rs. 28,483/- was added under the head of sundry charges, Rs. 9809/- was added under the head of arrears current financial years and Rs. 11,835/- under the head of current consumption charges. After receipt of bill 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  bill 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  bill dated 29.1.2018 of Rs.50,130/- and also directed to issue the correct consumption bill to the complainant.     

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 due to lower power factor  half margin No. 46 dated 27.11.2017 prepared by the Audit party on the basis for a period 10.3.2017 to 11/17 amounting to Rs. 28,483/-. This amount is charged through sundry charges and allowances. The detail memo No. 2266 dated 19.12.2017 issued to M/s Sunil Kumar son of Sushil Kumar for depositing Rs. 28,483/-. 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. 2266 dated 19.12.2017 for an amount of Rs. 28,483/- 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 bill Ex.C-2, copy of ESIM Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copies of judgments Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case of complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Ishwar Preet Singh SDO Ex.O.P-1, copy of half margin Ex.O.P-2, copy of memo No. 2266 Ex.OP-3, copy of consumption data from 1/17 to 9.3.2018 Ex.O.P-4, copy of sundry charges and allowances register Ex.OP-5, copy of bill dated 18.1.2018 Ex.OP-6, copy of commercial circular Ex.OP-7 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. 3002880374 under SP category. The said connection has been used by the complainant for  earning her livelihood by way of self employment. The complainant was shocked and surprised to receive a bill dated 18.1.2018 claiming an amount of Rs. 28,483/- as sundry charges 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. 2266 dated 19.12.2017 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. 2266 dated 19.12.2017 for an amount of Rs. 28,483/- on the direction of the audit party. Copy of memo is Ex.OP-3 and amount of memo was further added to the bill dated 18.1.2018. When on the receipt of said bill 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. 2266 or bill dated 18.1.2018 Ex.C-2. 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 Sunil Kumar. But on the perusal of the file it established that the premises in question is used by the complainant who is wife of Sunil Kumar after his death as deposed by the complainant in her affidavit Ex.C-1. Therefore, the complainant is the legal heir of the deceased Sunil Kumar and used the electric connection in question as beneficiary so she 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 amount of Rs. 28,483/- mentioned in the bill dated 18.1.2018 Ex.C-2 as sundry charges. Opposite party is also directed to adjust the amount if any deposited by the complainant against the said sundry charges 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