State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Darbara Singh vs Pspcl on 11 May, 2016
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1244 of 2014
Date of Institution: 10.09.2014
Date of Decision : 11.05.2016
Darbara Singh son of Babu Singh resident of near Defence Bandh,
Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. Assistant Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,
Urban, Sub Division Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited,
Urban, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib
.....Respondents/opposite parties
First appeal against order dated
04.08.2014 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri J.S. Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Talwinder Singh, Advocate For the respondents : Sh. Vishnav Gandhi, Advocate ................................................... J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellant has directed this appeal against respondents of this appeal, assailing order dated 04.08.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short the "District Forum"), vide which, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. The appellant is the complainant in the complaint and respondents of this appeal are the opposite parties in the complaint and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience.First Appeal No.1244 of 2014 2
2. The complainant has instituted the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), against the OPs on the averments that complainant is having electric connection bearing account no.K51KB98-0269-H for domestic purposes at his residential address. The complainant has been paying the electricity charges of the energy consumed by him regularly without any break. The OPs changed old electric meter of the complainant, vide MCO No.112/62219 dated 16.07.2012 without any notice to the complainant and new meter has been installed by them and meter reading of new electric meter was 6231 units after installing the same, which were consumed by the complainant and it already consumed lot of units. The OPs issued bill no.96336 dated 06.08.2013 for the amount of Rs.41,970/- including above said illegal sundry charges Rs.30,668/-. It was further alleged that OPs have no right to claim the sundry charges. On the basis of wrong and false average calculated by the OPs, they imposed sundry charges Rs.30,668/- in an unauthorized manner. The OPs went to the spot for disconnecting the electricity meter illegally and forcibly. The timely intervention stopped them from disconnecting the electric meter of complainant and respectable persons. The complainant challenged the said sundry charges, as unauthorized. The complainant further alleged that he deposited Rs.21,000/- out of the amount of Rs.41,430/- under protest, vide receipt no.403 dated 23.08.2013. The complainant has, thus, prayed that OPs be directed to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.30,668/-, as sundry charges or First Appeal No.1244 of 2014 3 any other amount under heading sundry charges, ii) not to disconnect the above electric connection, iii) to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and iv) to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum. The Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. The complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint. The complaint is alleged to be false, frivolous and fictitious, being an abuse of process of law. On merits, the OPs admitted the fact that complainant has been using the electric connection for the domestic purposes only. It was averred that complainant is defaulter and failed to pay the consumption charges. The old electric meter was changed on 16.07.2012, as per LCR no.77/282 and at the time of changing the meter, the reading of the new meter was 0502 and when new reading was taken in the month of September 2012 then it came 6262, but OPs charged for 1159 units only from complainant on average basis. It was further averred that at the time of internal audit, the audit party objected and directed OPs to charge the remaining amount due after deducting the reading of 502 units and 1159 units, which was already charged and after that report, the OPs charged the amount of Rs.30,668/- as consumption charges from the complainant. The OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
First Appeal No.1244 of 2014 4
4. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-10 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum Fatehgarh Sahib, the complainant now appellant directed this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. To decide the controversy between the parties, we refer to evidence on the record. Ex.C-1 is the affidavit of complainant coupled with copy of electricity bill dated 28.07.2012 for Rs.7120/- and bill status is on average basis. The complainant reiterated the version in this affidavit on oath, as pleaded in the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the copy of bill dated 01.10.2012 issued on average basis for 1159 units for Rs.7750/-. Ex.C-3 is the copy of bill dated 06.08.2013 of new meter recording 1611 units. The amount payable is 41,970/- out of which Rs.30,668/- shown as sundry charges. The OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Er. Sumel Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer of OPs, City Sub Division Sirhind. This witness stated that the complainant is in default of OPs to clear the consumption charges of electricity. It is further stated in the affidavit that said electric meter was changed on 16.07.2012, as per LCR no.77/282 and at the time of changing the meter, the reading of the new meter was 0502 and when new First Appeal No.1244 of 2014 5 reading was taken in the month of September 2012 then it came 6262, but OPs charged for 1159 units only from complainant on average basis. He further deposed that at the time of internal audit, the audit party objected and directed OPs to charge the remaining amount due after deducting the reading of 502 units and 1159 units, which was already charged and after that report, the OPs charged the amount of Rs.30,668/- as consumption charges from the complainant. Ex.OP-2 is the copy of MCO. E.OP-3 is the copy of internal audit party's report. Ex.OP-4 is the copy of ledger account of complainant. Ex.OP-5 is the copy of challan no.473 dated 22.01.2014 for checking of the meter in M.E. Lab, but consumer has not appeared and the meter could not be checked in the absence of consumer. Ex.OP-6 is the copy of order for changing the meter of complainant passed by the Assistant Engineer of Sub Division Sirhind. Ex.OP-7 is the copy of report of Shiv Shankar Lal, J.E. City Sub Division, Sirhind that consumer has not turned up for testing of meter in M.E. Lab. Ex.OP-8 is the notice regarding receipt of notice for checking of meter in the M.E. Lab. Ex.OP-9 is the copy of report dated 20.02.2014 that the meter was tested and it was not found to be a case of theft.
6. The District Forum observed in the order under challenge in this appeal that bill no.96336 dated 06.08.2013 showing Rs.30,668/- as sundry charges i.e. Ex.C-3 was issued on the basis of MCO report of Audit party i.e. Ex.OP-3 and ledger Ex.OP-4. The District Forum relied upon affidavit Ex.OP-1 tendered by the OPs First Appeal No.1244 of 2014 6 stating in detail that the amount being charged from the complainant is consumption charges for the actual consumption of units consumed by him. On the basis of above finding, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The complainant stated in his affidavit Ex.C-1 that OPs changed the old meter without any notice to him and new meter was installed by the OPs. After installing the new meter on 16.07.2012, the reading of new meter was 6231 units, which were not consumed by him. The OPs wrongly raised the sundry charges of Rs.30,668/- in bill Ex.C-3 dated 06.08.2013. On the other hand, OPs contended that old electric meter was changed on 16.07.2012, as per LCR no.77/282 and at the time of changing the meter, the reading of the new meter was 0502 and when new reading was taken in the month of September 2012 then it came to 6262, but OPs charged for 1159 units only from complainant on average basis. The audit party objected and directed OPs to charge the remaining amount due after deducting the reading of 502 units and 1159 units, which was already charged and after that report Ex.OP-3, the OPs charged the amount of Rs.30,668/- as sundry charges from the complainant, vide Ex.C-3. No theft was found of the electricity in this case, vide Ex.OP-9.
7. From hearing the respective submissions of counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, the complainant is proved to be consumer of above electric connection. The OPs changed the old meter, vide MCO Ex.OP-2 dated 16.07.2012. There is no substance on the record that any notice was served to complainant, when it First Appeal No.1244 of 2014 7 was changed. New meter was installed in place of old meter of complainant on 16.07.2012. Copy of MCO no.112/62219 dated 16.07.2012 is on the record. The complainant has been paying he charges regularly thereafter when the demand has been raised on the basis of objection of internal audit party by virtue of bill dated 06.08.2013 for the amount of Rs.41,970/- after one year. This demand of sundry charges of Rs.30,668/- has been raised on the basis of objection of internal audit party. We have examined the bill Ex.C-2, showing the new reading as 6231, but old reading has not been recorded in it of new meter of 1159 units. This bill was issued on average basis by the OPs. Vide bill Ex.C-3, the sundry charges have been raised by the OPs, even Er. Sumel Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer of OPs stated in his affidavit that 1159 units were already charged after deducting 502 units, which was at the time of changing the meter. The OPs charged Rs.30,668/- as sundry charges on the basis of objection of internal audit party. The entire case is based on Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3. We have examined these documents on the record. Ex.OP-2 is the order regarding removing the old meter and Ex.OP-2 is the ledger. We are unable to find out on what criteria, it has been done by the OPs in this case. Even the bills Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 do not reflect period/time for which they have been issued by the OPs. Simply sundry charges of Rs.30,668/- were raised on internal audit party's objection in new bill Ex.C-3. No criteria or regulation has been pointed by counsel for the OPs to our notice justifying the demand of Rs.30,668/- as sundry charges First Appeal No.1244 of 2014 8 raising in an arbitrary manner. Consequently, we are of this view that District Forum could not appreciate the controversy involved in this case appropriately. It is for OPs to justify on what criteria, the demand of Rs.30,668/- has been raised by them as sundry charges. The OPs remained unsuccessful to justify the raising of demand of Rs.30,668/- as sundry charges. Consequently, we find weightage in the submission of counsel for the complainant now appellant that the bill issued by the OPs to the extent of sundry charges of Rs.30,668/- by the OPs is arbitrary. Resultantly, the order of District Forum under challenge in this case is reversed in this appeal and appeal is accepted with a direction to respondents of this appeal to withdraw the amount of Rs.30,668/- (the sundry charges), as the same is quashed in this appeal. The appellant is entitled to composite amount of Rs.5000/- for mental harassment and litigation expenses from respondents of this appeal.
8. As a result of our above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellant, as referred to above and the complaint of the complainant now appellant stands accepted to this extent.
9. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 04.05.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR)
PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
May 11, 2016 (J.S. GILL)
(MM) MEMBER