Complainant Surti Lal has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to rectify the bill dated 10.01.2016 and also to pay Rs.30,000/- as mental harassment and agony alongwith  Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is having domestic electricity connection bearing Account No.G44MF431235F under Schedule Caste category and as such he is consumer of the opposite party. His approved electricity load is 0.26 kilowatts. On 5.7.2015, the officials of the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.1,13,666/- to him for 16,232 units whereas his load is 1.540 kilowatts and the bill is for 1233 days whereas the next bill issued to him respectively on 12.09.2015, 9.11.2015 and 10.1.2016 the consumption is 1552, 1020, 678 units respectively. The bill dated 5.7.2015 is disputed as the meter shown in the bill is 835267 which is not in his name. He is using the meter no.11245 which is mentioned in the electricity bill dated 8.9.2006. He approached the opposite party no.2 and gave written representation on 2.9.2014 because for the last more than three years he was not receiving consumption bills and when he again and again approached the office of opposite party and at that time he was asked to deposit the bill for the meter no.835267. He has next pleaded that on the application, the junior engineers of the opposite parties checked the meter at the spot and reported on the application that there is difference in his meter number. Actually he received bill of Rs.25,000/- for the year 2012 to 2014 and now after one year he is being asked to pay Rs.1,13,666/-. Opposite parties continuously issuing the electricity bills to him for the consumption of some one else connection and the last bill dated 10.1.2016 issued to him of Rs.1,37,370/- is highly exaggerated. On 20.01.2016 the officials of opposite parties disconnected his electricity connection without giving him specific notice as per rules and when he approached the office of opposite party no.2 he was told to deposit the whole amount of the bill so that his electricity connection can be restored. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the amount in dispute has been charged on the basis of consumption of electricity since 2013 and the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. On merits, it was submitted that the load of complainant was found higher than sanctioned, hence complainant is not entitled to the benefit of category of Scheduled Caste since 6.9.2013 when connection was checked and load was found as 1.226 and again it was checked on 4.2.2015 and load was found 1.540, while at the time of installation of connection the load sanctioned was 0.260 K.W. and at the time of above mentioned both the checking the meter No. was found as 832461 but due to change from manual to computerization system the Meter number was wrongly recorded as 835267 but now the correct No.832461 has been updated in the computerization system. It is admitted that the bill dated 5.7.15 for the period of 1233 days and subsequent bill dated 12.9.2015, dated 9.11.2015 and 10.1.2016 are for the period of 69 days, 58 days and 62 days respectively are correct according to the consumption of electricity but the complainant has not deposited any of the bill under the grab of recording of wrong meter number in the computerization bills. It is further admitted that the connection of complainant has been allotted Account No.3000127530 and Meter installed in the said connection bears No.832461 but when the system of computer was adopted at that time Meter No. of complainant has been wrongly taken as 835267 and said wrong has been continued due to mistake of computerization system, but is it fact that Meter No.832461 is running since the date of installation of Meter in the premises against Account No.3000127530 and Meter reading has been used to be taken from Meter No.832461 installed in the connection of complainant which bears Account No.3000127530. But now the correct No.832461 has been updated in the computerization system and said Meter No. has been corrected now for the next coming bills. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.     Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Harmanpreet Singh Gill, S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant (SC/ BC Category) has been a consumer of the opposite party Corporation (Service Providers) under the CP Act’ 1986, by virtue of being holder of the Electricity DS Connection A/c # G44MF431235F with a Sanction Load of 0.26KW, at his Residence. Upon being aggrieved at the receipt of one allegedly excessive Bill dated 05.07.2015 for Rs.1,13,666/- (Ex.C2) covering a period of 1233 days and exhibiting a connected Load of 1.54 KW and thus prompting the present complainant to prefer the present complaint alleging that he was entitled to a free rebate of 200 units per month and liable to pay further charges as per the actual consumption and not otherwise.

7.       However, the opposite party corporation (service providers) has duly explained that the impugned Bills simply represent the actual consumption by the complainant that amounts to a substantial connected load of 1.54 KW as checked on 04.02.2015. Moreover, the OP service providers have also stated that the free-rebate of 200 units as applicable to the SC/BC category is not available to connections with a connected load of 01 KW and more. The OP produced affidavit Ex.OP1 duly supported by the account-statements etc do prove the OP’s defense pleadings. Somehow, we find the explanation as made out by the opposite party service providers as satisfactory and legally valid. The demand as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the impugned Bill by the opposite party corporation has been a matter of routine and they have been within their legal rights to demand and recover the legally accrued amounts as per the Sales & Distribution of Electricity Rules & Regulations etc. 

8.       In the light of the all above, we do not find any statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs.  The complainant shall also be at liberty to apply for applicable concessions (if any) and/or easy bill-payment installments, if it is so desired or advised, and the OP Corporation shall determine the same on merits in terms of the applicable rules and regulations. 

9.        Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.   

                                                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                        President

ANNOUNCED:                                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

June, 21 2016.                                              Member.

*MK*