Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/311

Suman Kumar Monga - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit singh

15 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :         311 of 2017

Date of Institution :    18.09.2017

Date of Decision :      15.01.2019

Suman Monga aged about 65 years s/o Sh Ram Nath Monga, r/o House No.13/451, New Cantt Road, Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman cum Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer  DS City Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Faridkot.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd etc/Ops seeking directions to Ops to set withdraw the bill dt 6.09.2017 for Rs.67,790/-and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

cc  no.311 of 2017

2                                           Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is using domestic electric connection bearing a/c no. KG-57/0261 (old), 3000437192 (new) running in the name of Ajaib Singh, who is living abroad and now, complainant is residing in his house on rent and has been using his electric connection with his consent and he is paying all the bills regularly as and when received and nothing is due towards him. It is contended that complainant received a bill dt 5.07.2017 for Rs.19,920/- for the period from 6.05.2017 to 5.07.2017 and same was duly paid by the complainant. Complainant further received bill dated 6.09.2017 for Rs.67,790/- for the period from 5.07.2017 to 6.09.2017 in which Rs.17,066/-were charged as sundry charges and Rs.21,133/-were shown as arrears and Rs.120/-were shown as  adjustment. It is further contended that no amount towards consumption charges is due towards complainant as complainant has already paid all the previous bills and no amount is outstanding towards him. On receiving the said bill, complainant reached the office of OPs and requested them to withdraw the illegal demand for sundry charges and arrears in present bill, but OP-2 refused to do so and threatened him to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to pay the entire amount, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and this act and conduct of Ops has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to Ops to withdraw the demand of sundry charges and prayed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony

cc  no.311 of 2017

suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 19.09.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                           On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlement Committees to settle the dispute between the parties, but complainant has not put his case before such committee and therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and moreover, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and thus, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being incorrect and wrong and asserted that bill in question was sent to complainant and he was called upon to deposit the same. Refund of Rs.20,892/-was given to complainant for the period from 03/2016 to 01/2017 and  bill for Rs.7867/-for the month of 05/2017was sent to complainant, but he did not pay the same. The amount of this bill was adjusted from Rs.20,892/- and after adjusting this amount, a sum of Rs.13,020/-was in excess lying  deposited with OPs. It is averred that notice no.411 dated 30.03.2017 was served to complainant for Rs.50,013/-on account of theft. Meter of complainant was removed from the site and was checked in M E Lab and during

cc  no.311 of 2017

checking, it was  found that complainant had tampered with the meter and was controlling the consumption. It was declared as case of theft. As amount of Rs.13,020/- of complainant was lying in excess with OPs and after adjustment of amount a sum of Rs.36,993/-was found to be due and recoverable from complainant. Complainant deposited Rs.19,927/-with OPs and after adjustment amount of Rs.17,066/-is due towards complainant. It is further averred that bill for the month of July, 2017 for Rs.19,904/-was sent to complainant and this amount is also recoverable from complainant. It is further averred that no amount has been charged illegally and amount raised vide bill in  question is still due and recoverable from him. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                     Parties were given proper opportunities        to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 7 and closed the same.

6                                 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Gaurav Kakkar Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to OP-7 and closed the evidence.

7                               The ld Counsel for complainant argued that being tenant, complainant has been using a domestic electric connection

cc  no.311 of 2017

installed in the name of Ajaib Singh/his house owner who lives abroad. He is regularly paying all the electricity bills to Ops and nothing is due on account of electricity charges. Complainant received a bill dated 6.09.2017 for Rs.67,790/- in which Rs.17,066/-were charged as sundry charges, Rs.21,133/-were shown as arrears and Rs.120/-were mentioned as  adjustment. Complainant approached OPs and made several requests to them to withdraw the said bill, but all in vain. The OPs have no right to demand this amount from complainant as sundry charges without giving any detail and prior notice. All these acts of OPs amount to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part and due to these acts of OPs, complainant has faced great mental tension, agony and harassment. He has prayed that OPs may be directed to withdraw the demand raised in bill in question and also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

8                              To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OPs argued that bill was sent to complainant in which refund of Rs.20,892/-was given to him for the period from 03/2016 to 01/2017 and  bill for Rs.7867/-for the month of 05/2017 was sent to complainant, but he did not pay the same. The amount of this bill was adjusted from Rs.20,892/- and after adjusting this amount, a sum of Rs.13,020/-was in excess lying  deposited with OPs. It is further averred that notice no.411 dated 30.03.2017 was served to complainant for Rs.50,013/-on account of theft. Meter of complainant was removed from the site and was checked in M E Lab and during checking, it was  found that complainant

cc  no.311 of 2017

had tampered with the meter and was controlling the consumption. It was declared theft case. As amount of Rs.13,020/-of complainant was lying in excess with OPs and after adjustment, Rs.36,993/-found due towards complainant. He deposited Rs.19,927/-with OPs and after adjustment amount of Rs.17,066/-is due towards complainant. It is asserted that bill for the month of July, 2017 for Rs.19,904/- was sent to complainant and this amount is also recoverable from complainant. Demand raised by OPs is legal and they have every right to recover it from complainant. The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complainant against the OPs. Prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

9                                   We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well OPs and have carefully perused the record available on file.

10                          The case of the complainant is that OPs issued him bill dated 6.09.2017 for Rs.67,790/- in which they charged Rs.17,066/- as sundry charges and Rs.21,133/-were shown as arrears and Rs.120/-as  adjustment. Main contention of complainant is that though no amount towards consumption charges is due towards him as he has already paid all the previous bills, but despite repeated requests OPs did not redress his grievance. On the other hand plea taken by OPs is that the connection in question is installed in the name of Ajaib Singh and complainant is not their consumer. So, the present complaint filed by Suman Kumar Monga on behalf of Ajaib Singh is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The Ops further argued that the meter of complainant was

cc  no.311 of 2017

removed from the site and was checked in M E Lab and during checking it was found that complainant had tampered with the meter and was controlling the consumption. As such, the account of complainant was overhauled and amount of Rs.50,013/- was assessed which was demanded vide notice dated 30.03.2017 but the complainant has not paid this amount. As such, they have rightly claimed this amount from the complainant as sundry charges as per rules and regulations of the OPs.

11                                          So far as first objection of Ops is that the connection in question is installed in the name of Ajaib Singh and thus, complainant is not their consumer and therefore, he cannot file the present complaint against them and therefore, complaint filed by complainant is liable to be dismissed. Complainant has specifically pleaded in para no. 1 of the complaint that Ajaib Singh owner of the house, is residing abroad and complainant is in possession of said house and is using the connection in question being tenant of said Ajaib Singh. The said Ajaib Singh duly authorized the complainant to file the complaint regarding bills in question on his behalf. He produced copy of authority letter issued by Ajaib Singh as Ex C-5 as such, the complainant has right to file the present complaint. In support of his version, he has put reliance on citation 1999 (2) CLT (134) Joginder Singh Vs PSEB wherein our Hon’ble State Commission held that not only the actual person who hires the services of OPs is to be considered as consumer under Consumer Protection Act, but also the beneficiary of such contract of hiring the services of OPs. In the present complaint also, the

cc  no.311 of 2017

complainant is using the electricity connection in question being tenant of Ajaib Singh as its beneficiary user. Therefore, complainant is authorized and fully falls within the definition of consumer as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

12                                         The opposite party has 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 in the M.E. Lab and thereafter raising the demand arising out of the said checking, if any. 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

cc  no.311 of 2017

further checking in M E Labs in his presence. Further as per regulation no. 21.4 (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. He further argued that moreover, as per their own regulations, OPs can not charge 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 copy of Electricity supply Instruction Manual of OPs where regulation no. 93 is regarding payment of arrears not originally billed. 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.

cc  no.311 of 2017

 

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.  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 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.

13                                        In the light of above discussion and arguments advanced by parties and case law produced by the complainant, we are fully convinced with complainant and he has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to overhaul the account of the complainant and to withdraw the demand of Rs 50,013/- which is demanded by them vide notice no.411 dated 30.03.2017 from complainant on account of  alleged checking of M.E. Lab. 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 in Open Forum

Dated : 15.01.12019

 

(Parampal Kaur)                          (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                            President