Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/85

Tej Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Jatinder Marria

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

                                                    Complaint No :           85 of 2019

Date of Institution :    19.03.2019

Date of Decision :       25.09.2019

Tej Singh aged about 66 years s/o Bachittar Singh r/o Chaina Road, Sukhchain Pura Basti, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.

                                                             ...Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman cum Managing Director.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer  Op. Sub Division, PSPCL,  Jaitu.                                   

   .........Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

              Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Jatinder Marria, Ld Counsel for complainant,

    Sh M S Brar, 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 withdraw the demand of Rs.94,771/- raised vide bill issued in February, 2018 and for further directing them to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation

cc no.-85 of 2019

for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having SP electric connection bearing a/c no.3000437979 installed at his premises and he has been paying all the bills in respect of consumption charges to OPs regularly and nothing is due towards him. It is submitted that he received bill issued in February, 2018 in which Rs.94,771/-were charged as sundry charges. On enquiry by complainant, he was told that this amount is charged for U.U.E. Bill. It is submitted that OPs charged this amount to complainant without giving any notice or detail thereof. It is further submitted that complainant purchased one Reverse Osmosis System on 19.04.2018, but he did not use his electric connection for running said RO and got released a separate connection for running the R O System. During checking, said R.O. was checked through connection in question, but he has not run his RO from that connection and he cleared his position to concerned authorities. Complainant approached OPs several times and made many requests to them to withdraw the sundry charges demanded by them, but they flatly refused to hear his genuine requests, rather threatened to disconnect his electric connection, if he fails to deposit the entire amount in time, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant made several requests to Ops to withdraw the demand for excessive sundry charges, but they refused to accede to his requests and this act and conduct of Ops has

cc no.-85 of 2019

caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental tension to complainant for which he has prayed for seeking directions to OPs to set aside the demand of Rs.94,771/-and for further directing them to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3                                       Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dt 27.03.2019, 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 wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that connection of complainant was checked on 7.05.2018 and during checking it was found that he was using load of 13.545 KW unauthorizedly through his electric connection for running a R.O. under NRS category. It is brought before the Forum that sanctioned load for the  connection of complainant is 14.998 KW and during checking he was found using 6.368 KW load for workshop under SP category and load of 7.177 KW was being used for running RO under NRS category. Complainant was running RO system through this connection unauthorizedly. Checking was done in the presence of complainant and copy of checking report was supplied to him. Provisional order of assessment for unauthorized used of electricity as per

cc no.-85 of 2019

provisions of Regulations 36 of Supply Code 2014 and under Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 was issued to him vide memo no.9449 dated 25.09.2018 for Rs.94,772/-. However, on merits OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that checking was conducted in the presence of complainant and during checking he was found making unauthorized use of electricity for running R.O. System and therefore, amount of Rs.94,771/- charged for unauthorized use of electricity is correctly charged. It is averred that complainant is liable to make payment of consumption charges which are due towards him and they have every right to recover the same. Complainant is not entitled for any compensation or relief. 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 affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 8 and closed the same.

6                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sahil Garg Ex OP-1, affidavit of Balvir Singh Ex OP-2, affidavit of Rajinder Singh Ex OP-3and documents Ex OP-4 to OP-7 and closed the evidence.

cc no.-85 of 2019

7                                We have heard the ld counsel for complainant as well as Ops and have carefully gone through the evidence produced on file.

8                         From the careful perusal of record and evidence produced by respective parties, it is observed that case of complainant is that OPs raised demand of Rs.94,771/-for sundry charges, which is illegal though as per OPs , they have charged this amount for unauthorized use of electricity being made by complainant. Now, it is admitted case of the parties that complainant is consumer of OPs and is having electric connection in his premises. It is further admitted that Ops issued bill in February, 2019 for Rs.94,771/- for sundry charges. Grievance of the complainant is that bill for Rs.94,771/- is very excessive and it is illegal and unlawful. Ld counsel for complainant submitted before the Forum that he purchased one Reverse Osmosis System on 19.04.2018 and got released a separate connection for running the same and on the day of checking, said R.O. was checked through his connection in question, but he has not run his RO from that connection, but OPs charged Rs. 94,771/ for unauthorized use of electricity, which is incorrect. In reply, OPs brought before the Forum that during checking complainant he was found using 6.368 KW load for workshop under SP category and load of 7.177 KW was being used for running RO under NRS category. He was running RO system through this connection unauthorizedly. Checking was done in his presence and copy of checking report was duly supplied to him.

cc no.-85 of 2019

Provisional order of assessment for unauthorized use of electricity as per provisions of Regulations 36 of Supply Code 2014 and under Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 was issued to him vide memo no.9449 dated 25.09.2018 for Rs.94,772/-. Ld counsel for complainant has brought our attention towards document Ex C-5 which is copy of bill dated 9.02.2019 issued by OPs to him for connection obtained by him under Non Residential Supply of Electricity for the purpose of running his R.O.System. There is no doubt that complainant has obtained separate connection for running said R.O.System, but it is also placed on record by OPs through document Ex OP-4 which is copy of checking report dated 7.05.2018 that bears signatures of complainant, which proves that at the time of checking he was running R.O. System through S.P. connection.  

9                                      From the careful perusal of record and evidence and pleadings put forward by respective parties, it is made out that bill issued by Ops for Rs.94,771/-is highly excessive and does not seem appropriate. Bill dated 19.04.2018 clearly reveals the fact that complainant got installed said R.O. System at his premises on 19.04.2018 and checking was got conducted by officials of OPs on 7.05.2018. Meaning thereby, complainant made use of electricity through connection in question for the period from 19.04.2018 to 7.05.2018 i.e only for 18 days and penalty for amount of Rs.94,771/-levied by Ops to complainant after calculating the U.U.E. charges for one year, is highly excessive and does not seem justifiable. Complainant has also got installed another

cc no.-85 of 2019

electric connection under NRS category for running his R O System and now, no unauthorized use of power is being made  by him. Act of OPs in charging too much amount for only 18 days is highly excessive and unlawful. However, it is observed that at the time of checking, the complainant was running R.O. System through connection in S.P. category by violating the rules of PSPCL, as such, he is liable for suitable penalty for unauthorized use of electricity. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed with direction to Ops to withdraw the demand of Rs.94,771/-raised by them vide memo dated 25.09.2018 and are directed to charge the amount for unauthorized use of electricity by calculating it for the period of four months. Ops are further directed to adjust the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by complainant in compliance of order dated 27.03.2019 passed by this Forum in 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. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 25.09.2019

 

                                        (Param Pal Kaur)                     (Ajit Aggarwal)

           Member                                    President