DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 376/2016
Date of Institution : 10.02.2016
Date of Decision : 16.02.2017.
Vinod Kumar son of Krishan Chand resident of House No. B-11/9, Kacca College Road, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall Patiala, through its Secretary.
Assistant Executive Engineer (City) PSPCL, Barnala.
Sub-Divisional Officer (City) PSPCL, Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. D.R. Jindal counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Harpreet Singh counsel for the opposite parties
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
Sh. Karnail Singh : Member.
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member.
ORDER
(MS. VANDNA SIDHU, MEMBER):
1. As per complaint No. 376/16, complainant is consumer of electricity services rendered by opposite parties and an electric meter No. 4559247 bearing consumer No. L22KC603917F contract A/C No. 3001570015 was installed by opposite parties in the premises of the complainant where presently the complainant has been residing. On 28.9.2015 bill No. 21596 was sent to the complainant in which the infrastructure development cess was wrongly charged as Rs. 728/- but the actual infrastructure was Rs. 228/- and complainant went to the office of opposite parties and asked about wrong charge then the opposite parties get corrected the bill of the complainant. On 28.11.2015 a bill No. 45539 was sent to the complainant in which the infrastructure cess was wrongly charged as Rs. 890/- but the actual infrastructure development cess was Rs. 150/-. It was also corrected by the opposite parties when complainant again approached in the office of the opposite parties. The complainant has to left his shop for the correction in the bill again and again due it complainant received financial loss as he lost his customer by leaving behind his shop. Upon this opposite parties assured the complainant that in future that there will be no such mistake/error in future bills. Again complainant got astonished when he again received the bill No. 12694 dated 21.1.2016 having wrong infrastructure development cess as Rs. 998/- instead of Rs. 112/- which was the actual and correct infrastructure development cess charges. The complainant again approached the opposite parties to correct the said bill and further requested then to not raise wrong bills. Upon this the opposite parties replied that he is not at the fault for the wrong bill generation. This is due to the machine which is generating wrong bills. The opposite parties made Rs. 200/- less in the said bill the but the complainant refused for said less as the actual less was to be Rs. 886/-. The complainant again requested the opposite parties to correct his bill and on this the opposite parties refused to do so and asked the complainant that he has no time. The complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 3 and inquired about the wrong infrastructure development cess, then the concerned person was not present in his chair but one person namely Teja Singh was sitting in his chair. When the complainant asked the said Teja Singh about the concern person then Teja Singh told the complainant that the concerned person is on leave. Upon asking for the bill correction by the complainant, the said Teja Singh insulted the complainant by saying that you come again and again for bill correction. He further said that the bill of the complainant will not be corrected as the bill is already correct, Teja further threatened the complainant that in case he failed to pay the said bill then the electricity supply to the house of the complainant will be disconnected, at that time Amit Kumar was also present there for the correctioning in his bill. Amit Kumar told to Teja Singh that he is an Advocate. He asked Teja Singh regarding the concerned person and also who correct the bills and further asked Teja Singh whether he has any authority to correct the electricity bill or not and upon this said Teja Singh replied to Amit Kumar in a harsh way and told him to go to SDO. Thereafter, the complainant and Amit Kumar approached the SDO and narrated the complete incident to SDO. Then SDO assured both of them to take necessary action against Teja Singh and when the complainant and Amit Kumar asked regarding the concerned person then SDO also told them that he is on leave and upon the request of complainant and Amit Kumar he refused to show the attendance register and did not take any action against said Teja Singh and failed to elaminate the said grievance of complainant. The complainant visited many times to the office of opposite parties for correction in the electricity bill but the opposite parties did not accede to the request of the complainant. So all the above facts and circumstances clearly show that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in rendering services to the complainant and in this way the complainant has suffered eminent physical pain, mental agony, financial loss and inconvenience and all the opposite parties are liable for the same jointly and severally.
Reliefs:-
The opposite parties may kindly be directed to withdraw the bill No. 12694 amounting to total payable Rs. 3350/- and to re-issue the fresh bill after deducting the amount of Rs. 886/- of said infrastructure development cess and not to disconnect the electrical supply of the house of complainant and also be directed jointly and severally to make the payment of Rs. 90,000/- due to physical pan, mental agony, financial loss and inconvenience suffered by complainant and a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as expenses of litigation.
2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared before the above sated Forum and filed their version. As per legal objections opposite parties submitted that the above stated complaint is not maintainable and complainant concealed material facts. Complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. This Forum have no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Moreover, opposite parties submitted that the present complaint filed with malafide intention and facts just harras and pressurise the opposite parties by filing complaint on same facts. On facts, it is submitted that the alleged dispute in between both the parties is only for infrastructure charges, which were charged in the electricity bill consumed by the consumer. Except this no dispute in between the parties regarding consumption charges etc., and infrastructure charges are coverable under mentioned commercial circular, which is as under:-
“It is submitted that Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., issued Commercial circular No. 27/2015 to all the Engineers In Chief/Chief Engineer (Distribution) under Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., vide memo No. 223/227 /S-V-109/PIDB dated 01/07.2015 under the Subject: THE PUNJAB INFRASTRUCTURE (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) AMENDMENT ORDINACE 2015 (PUNJAB ORDINAC NO. 2 OF 2015). Govt. of Punjab vide subject cited Ordinance and Department of Finance, Govt. of Pb., vide notification No. S.O.25/PA/8/2002/S.25/2015 has levied Infrastructure Development fee at the rate of rupees five for every hundred rupees on the value of electricity consumed excluding any other levies of duties as the case may be, provided that the aforesaid fee, shall not be levied in those cases, which are exempted from the payment of electricity”
3. Further it is submitted on facts by the opposite parties that the opposite parties charged the infrastructure charges in the bills of consumers from 9/2015. It is the procedure adopted by the PSPCL to send the bills of the every consumer infrastructure charges. On receipt of the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties and asked about the infrastructure charges. The official of the opposite parties explained in regard of infrastructure charges and also show the notification of the government and commercial circular No. 27/2015 to the complainant but the complainant requested that he is not able to pay the above said infrastructure charges and requested to pay the part payment of infrastructure charges and assured that he shall pay all the infrastructure charges later on. On his request the amount of infrastructure charges be decreased and an amount of Rs. 500/- has been minus from the consumption bill of the complainant. Further it is also submitted by opposite parties on facts in denial that on dated 28.11.2015 a bill No. 45539 was sent to the complainant in which the infrastructure charges were wrongly charged as Rs. 890/- but the actual development charges was Rs. 150/-. There is no error or mistake by the opposite parties but the complainant requested that he has less Rs. 740/- out of the total bill then on the request of the complainant the bill was deposited by the opposite parties as part payment. Again it is also made denial by opposite parties that after receiving bill No. 12694 on 21.1.2016 having wrong infrastructure development as Rs. 998/- instead of 112/- which was the actual and correct infrastructure development cess charges, and he again requested the opposite parties to correct the said bill and further requested that he is not at the fault for wrong bill generation. Further it is mentioned that the complainant is very clever person and dishonest and to cheat the employees of the opposite parties, by this request to the employees that he had brought the bill amount but in the way he had spent some money so he have less amount out of the way, on the request of the complainant the employees of the opposite parties got deposited the bill as part payment from the complainant but the complainant wants to get undue benefits from the employees of the opposite parties and with malafide intention entered the false story. Opposite parties are entitled to recover the disputed amount.
4. In support of his pleadings the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bills and receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5, copy of detail of bills Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.
5. In order to rebut the complaint the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Krishan Goyal SDO Ex.O.P-1, copy of notification dated 1.7.2015 Ex.O.P-2, copy of application dated 4.2.2016 Ex.O.P-3 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel of both the parties and pursue minutely the entire record. Complainant is a registered consumer under the opposite parties. He received the bill for the month of September i .e. bill no. 21596, November 2015 bill no. 45539 and again January 2016 bill no. 12694. Virtually the dispute is not in regard of amount of bills. But only for Infrastructure development Cess in dispute. As per Exhibit C-6, infrastructure charges in the bill was Rs. 728/- but Rs.228 paid by the complainant because the complainant requested to pay part payment of infrastructure charges and assured for depositing remaining amount. So, by this way the amount of 500/- has been deducted from the above said bill of complainant. It is also pertinent to mention here that after analyzing the version, this fact came in knowledge that on the query by complainant about, infrastructure,charges, the opposite party No. 3 explained about the infrastructure charges to him. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that charging of Infrastructure charges, in the bills of all consumers from 9/2015 as per the notification of Punjab Govt. ,that Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Issued Commercial circular no. 27/2015 to all the engineers in Chief/Chief Engineer (Distribution) under Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., vide memo No. 223/227/S-V-109/PIDV dated 1.7.2015 under the subject the Punjab Infrastructure (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance 2015 (Punjab Ordinance of 2015). Further it is made denial by the opposite parties that in the bill of November on 28.11.2015 bill No. 45539 which was sent to the complainant with wrong amount of Rs. 890/- of infrastructure development cess but the actual development charges was Rs. 150/-. In contrary to it, the opposite parties submitted on facts that complainant visited the office of opposite parties and made request to unable to deposit the total amount of the bill and he has less Rs. 740/- out of the total bill then again complainant paid part payment of the above mentioned bill. Next bill No.12694 of 21.1.2016 i.e. Ex.C-4 is also bone of contention as per complaint due to wrong infrastructure development charges of Rs. 998/-. But on the basis of facts, those enumerated in version by opposite parties it is submitted that complainant received correct bill which is the actual and correct infrastructure development charges. Moreover, Ex.C-4 i.e. bill No. 12694 in which infrastructure development charges Rs. 998/-, has been calculated @ 5% on S.O.P. mean to say (supply of power) Rs. 19955/-, as mentioned in the bill Ex.C-4 for a period of 24.4.2015 to 21.1.2016 as per notification memo No. 223/227 of dated 1.7.2015 i.e. Ex.O.P-2, so, by this way, the infrastructure development cess is to be calculated @ 5% on the amount of Rs. 19955/- for the period of 272 days. It is pertinent to mention here that previous bills i.e. Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 also deposited by complainant with part payment.
7. In view of our above discussion, this Forum came on this conclusion that opposite parties do not fall under section 2 (1) g of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, the above stated three bills No. 21596, 45539 & 12694 are correct bills as per considering the entire record minutely. Therefore, there is no merit the present complaint and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
16th Day of February, 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
