State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Khajinder Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. on 10 May, 2023
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.805 of 2022
Date of institution : 20.09.2022
Date of Reserve : 17.04.2023
Date of Decision : 10.05.2023
S.Khajinder Singh S/o S.Mohinder Singh near Ram Mandir Kot Atma
Ram, Amritsar.
.......Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through the SDO, Industrial
Division, Amritsar
.......Respondent/Opposite Party
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
against the Order dated 18.07.2022
passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission,
Barnala, Camp Court at Amritsar in
CC No.RBT/17 of 2018.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present :-
For the appellant : Sh.Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate For the respondent : Ms.Roja Agnihotri, Advocate SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER Appellant/Complainant-S.Khajinder Singh has filed the present appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short 'The Act') being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barnala, Camp Court at Amritsar (in short 'the District Commission') whereby F.A.No.805 of 2022 2 the complaint filed by the complainant-S.Khajinder Singh was dismissed.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. The contents of the complaint filed by the complainant before the District Commission are that complainant-S.Khajinder Singh had obtained one electric connection bearing Account No.3002880670 under Small Power (SP) category from the OP for running his business to earn his livelihood by way of self employment. In the month of December 2017, some officials of the OP came to the business premises of complainant to disconnect his electricity supply. The complainant raised objections, and he met officials of higher rank of the OP. The official of the OP corporation (PSPCL) handed over a memo No.2783 dated 21.12.2017 for an amount of Rs.95,337/- that from 8/15 to 11/15 the complainant had consumed 2029 units whereas during the same period corresponding to previous year, the complainant had consumed 15370 units. So the OP after deducting 2029 units from 15370 units asked the complainant to pay Rs.95,337/- for 13341 units which was not at all payable by the complainant. The OP had issued this memo illegally only to harass the complainant. The complainant went so many times to the office of the OP for the withdrawal of the said memo but they did not bother for the same and in fact threatened to disconnect the connection permanently. The demand so made through said memo was beyond the period of limitation. The act of OP amounted to 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' on its part. Hence, the complaint F.A.No.805 of 2022 3 had to be filed by the complainant by seeking the following directions to OP:-
1. OP be directed to withdraw the memo No.2783 dated 21.12.2017 or alternatively, it may be set aside being wrong and illegal and not to add this amount in the future bills of the complainant and issue regular bills to him in future on the basis of actual reading.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for mental pain and agony.
3. To pay Rs.22,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. Upon issuance of notice OP filed its written statement by raising certain preliminary objections stated therein that complaint of the complainant was not maintainable. Complainant had obtained industrial connection for running his business and had also employed labour and other persons in the factory. Since the said connection was being used for commercial purposes therefore the complainant was not a consumer. The complainant had not approached the District Commission with clean hands. The meter of the complainant was burnt and it was replaced on 23.11.2015. The said meter was checked in the ME Lab Verka vide ECR No.55/2313 on 20.12.2017.
The meter remained burnt from 28.07.2015 to 23.11.2015. During the said period an average of 2029 units was charged from the complainant as per the reading of the computer. It was only after the said meter was checked in the ME Lab, consumption data of previous month was analyzed. It was found that during the corresponding cycle in the previous month he had consumed 15370 units. OP had initially sent a bill on average consumption of 2029 units. A computation of difference between the two consumption cycles was F.A.No.805 of 2022 4 done and after deduction of 2029 out of 15370 units the bill was sent for 13341 units amounting to Rs.93,427/- with an additional amount of Rs.1910/- as charges towards meter. An amount of Rs.95,337/- was raised as per rules and regulations of the Board. The OP has explained the calculations to the complainant vide memo No.2783 dated 21.12.2017 Ex.C-2. It was denied that demand was raised beyond the period of limitation. The OP was empowered to disconnect the connection in case the consumer failed to pay the due electricity charges payable to the department. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. By considering the averments made in the complaint as well as in the reply thereof, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed vide order dated 18.07.2022 by the District Commission. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under:-
"10. From the above discussion, it is clear that there is no negligence or carelessness or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The amount charged from the complainant is correct. The opposite party officials have fully explained the correct position and calculations to the complainant as per Ex.OP-2 so the complaint has no merit and same is dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation."
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the District Commission, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal by raising a number of grounds.
7. Sh.Sukhandeep Singh, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that the order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the District Commission is liable to be set aside. The bill F.A.No.805 of 2022 5 raised by the respondent/OP was time barred and it was in utter violation Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007 amended in 2014 (Effective from 1.1.2015) notified by respondent/OP. The meter of the complainant was burnt on 23.11.2015, whereas it was checked in ME Lab vide ECR No.55/2313 on 30.12.2017. The said act of the OP tantamounts to unfair trade practice. The provision of Electricity Supply Code and related matter Regulation 2007, regarding the burnt meter Regulation 21.3.6 (e) is relevant which reads as below:-
e) 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 through a notice at least three (3) days in advance. In such cases, the seals shall be removed/ broken in the presence of the consumer or his/her authorised representative and testing undertaken in the laboratory of the distribution licensee or any accredited laboratory within fifteen (15) days from the date of removal of meter from consumer's premises.
In the present case the meter was checked in ME Lab beyond the prescribed period of 15 days.
8. The other argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant is that before raising the said demand dated 21.12.2017, No Show Cause Notice or any opportunity was afforded to the complainant by OP. Learned counsel has also relied upon the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by this Commission in FA No.829 of 2019 in case titled as "PSPCL & Anr. Vs. Gurmit Singh" in support of his arguments.
9. Ms.Roja Agnihotri, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that complaint of the complainant was not F.A.No.805 of 2022 6 maintainable as the complainant was not 'consumer' under the definition of Consumer Protection Act. Respondent/OP had demanded the bill as per Regulation 21.5.2 of Supply Code. Respondent/OP had issued BILL CUM SHOW CAUSE bearing memo No.2783 dated 21.12.2017 Ex.C-2 by raising a demand of Rs.95,337/- to consumer as per supply code Regulation 21.5.2., which states that if the meters are defective/dead stop/Burnt/Stolen Meters, the accounts of a consumer is required to be overhauled/billed for the period meter remained defective/dead stop subject to maximum period of six months. In case burnt/stolen meter has been made direct, the account is required to be overhauled for period of direct supply subject to maximum period of six months. The order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the District Commission is well- reasoned and no interference is required at this stage. She has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
10. We have heard the arguments raised by learned counsel for both the parties and have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission as well as the relevant documents available on the file.
11. Facts relating to filing of complaint by the complainant before the District Commission, reply thereof and after hearing the arguments raised by both the parties and passing of impugned order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the District Commission and thereafter filing of appeal before this Court by the appellant/complainant are not in dispute.
F.A.No.805 of 20227
12. Admittedly, the electricity meter of the appellant/complainant was under Small Power (SP) category industrial connection bearing Account No.3002880670 and it was replaced on 23.11.2015. It remained burnt from 28.07.2015 to 23.11.2015. The said meter was checked in ME lab Verka vide ECR No.55/23 on 23.12.2017 i.e. after a period of more than two years. The said memo No.2783 dated 21.12.2017 amounting to Rs.95,337/- was issued after the checking of the meter in ME Lab and the consumption data was analyzed for the consumption from 8/15 to 11/15 as per said memo Ex.C-2. The act of OP in issuing the said demand after lapse of more than two years is clearly contrary to the Regulation of 21.3.6. (e) of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 as reproduced above.
13. Moreover, in the present case, no show-cause notice was issued to the complainant, which amounts to 'deficiency in service' on the part of OP-PSPCL. The respondent/OP has failed to show that any such notice was ever issued to the complainant before raising the huge bill of Rs.95,337/-. It has been done for no fault of the complainant as delay had occurred on the part of OP/respondent. Nothing has been brought on record by the respondent/OP in the arguments as well as in reply of complaint which can prove that they had issued the notice before the issuance of said supplementary bill.
14. From the perusal of the above stated facts and the relevant documents available on record, we find merit in the contentions/arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the F.A.No.805 of 2022 8 appellant and set aside the order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the District Commission. OP/respondent is directed to withdraw the Memo No.2783 dated 21.12.2017 for an amount of Rs.95,337/- and proceed further in accordance with the relevant provision of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations, 2007 amended in 2014 (Effective from 1.1.2015) as applicable. OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
15. Since the main case has been disposed of, so all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are accordingly, disposed of.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY) PRESIDENT (SIMARJOT KAUR) MEMBER May 10, 2023 (Rupinder 2)