State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharamvir Bector Through His Lrs. vs Punjab State Power Corp. Limited & Anr. on 16 May, 2023
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No.413 of 2022
Date of Institution : 23.05.2022
Date of Reserve : 05.05.2023
Date of Decision : 16.05.2023
Dharamvir Bector son of late Lachhman Dass (since deceased)
represented through his LRs. Rajni Bector wife of Late Dharamvir
Bector and Anoop Bector son of Late Dharamvir Bector, resident of
13-C, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall Patiala
through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. The Senior Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited, Agar Nagar Division, Ludhiana.
......Respondents/Opposite parties
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 13.04.2022 of the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
SBS Nagar, Camp Court, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Mr.Harinderpal Singh Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.M.S.Saini, Advocate
For the respondents : Sh.Sukant Gupta, Advocate
First Appeal No 413 of 2022 2
HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant- Dharamvir Bector (since deceased) through his LRs Rajni Bector and Anoop Bector against the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, SBS Nagar, Camp Court, Ludhiana whereby the complaint filed by the respondent /complainant was dismissed.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
2. In nutshell, the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties having the domestic electricity connection, which has been installed in his premises and he is making the payment of electricity bill regularly as per the bills issued. On 26.03.2017, the complainant received a bill of 1621 units for the period 13.02.2017 to 17.03.2017 amounting to Rs.12,375/- in which a sum of Rs.10,00,292/- has been shown as sundry charges. After receipt of this bill, the complainant approached the opposite parties to know about the details of sundry charges but they refused to hear the complainant and asked the complainant to deposit the dues, as shown in the bill. The meter is the property of the opposite parties and the complainant is also paying the payment for the usage of the said meter. The demand raised by the opposite parties for Rs.10,00,292/- is totally illegal, which the opposite parties refused to withdraw despite repeated requests of the complainant resulting First Appeal No 413 of 2022 3 the filing of this complaint against the opposite parties seeking the following reliefs:
i) the illegal demand of Rs.10,00,292/- raised, vide bill dated 26.03.2017 may kindly be quashed and the opposite parties be directed to receive the consumption charges;
ii) to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation/damages on account of deficiency in service; and
iii) to pay Rs.33,000/- as legal expenses to the complainant.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed their reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. Being the complicated matter it can only be decided by Civil Court. The complainant should have approached different Forum for redressal of grievances of consumer constituted by the opposite parties but in spite of that he directly approached this Commission. The complainant has filed the present complaint which is not maintainable. It is further averred that as per the record, the electricity connection bearing A/c No.GC51/885 (New A/c No.3002865237) is in the name of Dharampal and not in the name of Dharamvir Bector, so the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The electricity meter is with sanctioned load of 46.400 KW in the name of Dharampal at 13-C, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana and the said connection was inspected as per the LCR First Appeal No 413 of 2022 4 dated 30.10.2015 by the competent authority and it transpires that in the said premises consumer CT of 100/5 AMP and meter of 100/5 AMP was lying installed, thus, for preparing the bill multiply factor of one was required to be applied but instead of that multiply factor of 0.50 was applied by the opposite parties, which was purely a clerical mistake and was not intentional and it was noticed by the Audit party of CMC Division Special, vide their letter No.114 dated 06.10.2014 written to AEE Commercial, Aggar Nagar Division Special, PSPCL Ltd., Ludhiana to inquire the matter and to check the record of the said connection and take necessary action. After receipt of the letter, the opposite parties checked the record of the said connection and came to know that during the period from 01/2013 to 10/2016, account of the said connection was revised by applying the required multiply factor of 1 instead of 0.5, which was already applied for the billing done by the opposite parties and after adjusting the amount already recovered from the said period of the current bill, a sum of Rs.10,18,312/- was found recoverable on account of current consumption bills for the said period and memo No.3732 dated 23.11.2016 was issued in the name of Dharam Pal requiring him to deposit a sum of Rs.10,18,312/-, so the demand raised by the opposite parties is legal. After receipt of the notice, no reply was filed nor he approached the Settlement Committee of the opposite parties but instead of that he filed the present complaint and has not deposited any money. Later on, charged through sundry charges register entry and was included in the First Appeal No 413 of 2022 5 current bill dated 26.03.2017 total amounting to Rs.10,30,988 which has not been deposited.
4. The parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions before the District Commission and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the complaint was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 13.04.2022.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 and to allow the appeal.
6. We have heard the contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record as well as written arguments filed by the appellant/complainant. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the same.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has filed the written arguments on the similar averments as mentioned in the complaint. It is contended that the meter is the property of the respondents/opposite parties and it was their duty to get the meter checked from the lab and as per Regulation 21.1 of Supply Code- 2014, it was also the duty of the respondents/opposite parties to install the correct meter in the premises but they failed to perform their duty as per the rules and regulations of the Electricity Department, which amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part. He further submitted that it was the duty of the respondents/opposite parties to regularly check the reading of the meters and correct consumption by applying the proper multiplying First Appeal No 413 of 2022 6 factor because as per the instructions of the Electricity Department, JE has to check the meter at least once in every 6 months and for three phase connection shall be checked once in a year, which has not been done by the respondents/opposite parties and this amounts to deficiency in service on their part and the appellant/ complainant cannot be penalized for their own fault. While arguing, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has referred the following judgments:
i) CWP No.10644 of 2010 titled 'Apex Chamber of Commerce & Industry (Punjab) Vs. Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors., decided on 26.09.2013 (P&H)
ii) CWP No.17699 of 2014 titled M/s Park Hyundai Sangrur Vs. PSPCL, decided on 19.12.2015 (P&H)
iii) LPA No.734 of 2010 'Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Tagore Public School and another' decided on 29.06.2010.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ opposite parties submitted that demand of the error occurred in the reading of the meter was regularly raised by the respondents/ opposite parties from time to time but despite that the appellant/complainant has failed to deposit the requisite amount. He further submitted that the error in applying the multiplying factor 0.50 instead of 1 was just a clerical mistake and it was not intentional and it was noticed by the Audit party and on their directions, the meter was again checked and fault was noticed and that is why this amount was calculated, so, the demand raised by First Appeal No 413 of 2022 7 the respondents/ opposite parties is purely legal and they suffered due to this mistake.
9. With regard to the objection raised by the respondents/ opposite parties that the meter connection No.3002865237 is installed in the name of Dharam Pal, whereas the complaint is filed by Dharmvir Bector, who has no concern with the electricity connection and the complaint is not maintainable at all is not tenable in the eyes of law. It has been specifically mentioned by the appellant/complainant that the connection was installed in the premises at 13-C, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana since long and this fact is also not disputed by the respondents / opposite parties that the connection is running in the same building. When the connection issued by the respondents/opposite parties is running in the same premises then it is not relevant that in whose name the electricity connection was issued when the premises is specific and is very clear from the record. In this regard, we rely upon the judgment of this Commission "Satpal Vs. PSEB" 2006(2)CPC-137 wherein it is held as under:
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d)(i) -
Consumer - Beneficiary - It is settled that a person who is staying in a house as a actual user of electricity would be a consumer being a beneficiary - In the present case electricity connection was in the name of father of the complainant - A demand of Rs.12,370/- was raised against complainant by PSEB against which District Forum was approached for First Appeal No 413 of 2022 8 necessary relief - Order of the Forum holding that complainant is not a consumer cannot be sustained - A beneficiary is also a consumer as defined in C.P. Act"
10. Now coming to the point that if the demand as raised by the respondents/opposite parties after detecting the mistake and correcting the calculation of consumption charges is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Though, from the very beginning, the respondents/opposite parties are alleging that due to some clerical mistake the multiply factor 0.50 was applied instead of 1 in the bills issued during the period 01/2013 to 10/2016. But after the inspection and calculation it was found that as per the consumption, the multiply factor 1 is to be applied then of course they can put the overdue charges. The provision for recovery of such charges is also provided under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which is reproduced as under:
"56. Disconnection of supply in default of payment - (1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days, notice in writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line or other works being the property of such licensee or the generating company through which electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed First Appeal No 413 of 2022 9 or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid, but no longer."
11. As per this Section, the amount is recoverable if it is regularly shown as arrears or charges of electricity supplied as per the due notice issued on 23.11.2016, vide Ex.R-4. In this case, the notice was issued, which is not denied.
12. With regard to the judgments, as referred by the appellant / complainant in support of his contentions, we find that the facts of the referred judgments are quite different and are not applicable to the present case.
13. We rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2021(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 422 titled M/s Prem Cottex Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors., decided on 05.10.2021 wherein it is held as under:
"Electricity Act, 2003, Section 56 - Non payment of electricity bill- Disconnection of electric supply - Negligence - If licensee has not raised any bill, no negligence on part of consumer to pay bill and consequently period of limitation prescribed under Sub-Section (2) will not start running- So long as limitation has not started running, bar for recovery and disconnection will not come into effect - Therefore, dismissal of consumer complaint upheld."
14. In this case also, the licensee has raised the sundry charges as balance amount to be paid, which was earlier wrongly calculated by applying multiply factor of 0.50 instead of 1. This itself First Appeal No 413 of 2022 10 is proved from the bill, Ex.C-1, whereby the overall multiplier is applied as 0.50000 instead of 1 and it is also proved from Ex.R-1 where it is mentioned that the multiply factor 1 was to be applied. Moreover, the appellant/complainant has nowhere denied that the meter was not checked as the complainant is receiving the bill, Ex.C-1, regularly, where the multiplier factor 0.5000 is applied instead of 1, which is merely a clerical mistake, detected subsequently. This mistake which is clerical in nature can occur any time and subsequently when detected can be rectified. A calculation sheet has also been placed on the record by the respondents/opposite parties, vide Annexure R-3, which the appellant/complainant has nowhere contested or denied.
15. In view of the above discussions and as per the law laid down, we find no force in the appeal to interfere in the order of the District Commission. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed and the order of the District Commission is upheld.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(HARINDERPAL SINGH MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER May 16th, 2023 parmod