Prithipal Singh complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that opposite parties may kindly be directed to withdraw memo in question and illegal demand of Rs.1,02,824/- and opposite parties may also be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in services and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is having domestic electricity connection in his name bearing A/c No.3001435347 and paying the consumptions bills regularly to the opposite parties and as such he is the consumer of the opposite parties. It was pleaded that a memo No.442 dated 24.03.2017 amounting to Rs.1,02,824/- was issued by the opposite party No.3 to the complainant on account of difference of units by directing him to deposit the impugned amount within 7 days and alleged in the said memo that meter of the complainant was removed on 11.01.2017 for checking which was checked in M.E.Lab. on 24.03.2017 and found during the checking that reading of meter was 23477 but as per record it was 10194 and as such it was difference of consumed units which comes to 13283 and the said memo was not biding upon the complainant. It was further pleaded that meter of the complainant was OK which was cleared from the consumption history of electricity status of old meter bearing No.159661 which was only in the bill dated 27.12.2016 whereas status of the meter was mentioned as ‘D’ by the opposite parties without any reason and the same was removed which was neither sealed nor checked in the M.E.Lab in the presence of the complainant. It was also pleaded that official of the opposite parties got sign of the complainant on one form on the excuse that new meter was to be installed, complainant is an illiterate person and can sign only in Punjabi, except it, he is unable to read and write any language. It was next pleaded that memo issued by the opposite parties was illegal and complainant approached the office of opposite party No.3 many times and requested the official of opposite parties to withdraw the alleged memo and illegal demand but of no use. It was pleaded that complainant neither remained defaulter nor remained indulged in any kind of theft of electricity but he was harassed by the opposite parties illegally and threatened to cut his electricity connection if he failed to deposit the demanded amount and as such this act of the opposite parties clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objection that complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and he was guilty of suppression of material and vital facts from this Hon’ble Forum and as such complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it was admitted that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties and a domestic electric connection bearing Account No.3001435347 is running in the name of the complainant in his house. It was denied that complainant was paying the consumption bills regularly. It was admitted that a memo bearing No.442 dated 24.03.2017 for an amount of Rs.102824/- had been issued to the complainant. It was stated that meter of the complainant was defective and the same was removed from his premises who gave his written consent which was duly signed by the complainant to check the meter in the M.E.Lab. in his absence and as such removed meter of the complainant was produced before the M.E. Laboratory Batala vide challan No.154 dated 24.03.2017 by the AJE Sukh Pal of this west sub division PSPCL Batala where meter of the complainant was checked by the SDO of M.E. Lab. on the same day in the presence of other officials of PSPCL department and recorded the report of the checking on the challan and they remarked that the reading of this meter was recorded as 23477 units and complainant had already paid the bill of consumption charges up to 10194 units and complainant is liable to pay the cost of the remaining units i.e. 13283 units (23477-10194=13283). It was further stated that direction was given to the opposite party No.3 to recover the consumption charges of 13283 units and as per the report of the M.E.Lab notice bearing memo No.442 dated 24.03.2017 was issued to the complainant for paying the amount of Rs.102824/- i.e. the cost of 13283 units consumed by him. It was also stated that complainant signed the written consent for checking the meter in the M.E.Lab.in his absence and as such presence of the complainant was not required at the time of inspection of the meter which was removed from his premises and the same was sealed in a cardboard box in the presence of the complainant. It was next stated that complainant had consumed the electricity and as such he is liable to pay the consumption charges and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

4.      Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence.

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Ajit Singh Sran S.D.O. Ex.OP-1 along with documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

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 (in accordance with the legislated provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the instant dispute/complaint. We observe that the complainant had been quite a long time consumer of the opposite party service providers/ corporation being the recorded beneficiary holder of the DS (domestic supply) Connection A/c # 3001435347 installed at his family residence. The complainant has however filed the present complaint for statutory redressal of his hurt/grievance caused upon receipt of an excessive Demand Memo/ Bill # 442 dated 24.03.2017 for Rs.102,824/ payable within 07 days for an unauthorized consumption of 13283 units as figured on 24.03.2017 vides ME Lab Testing of his Electric Meter removed on 11.01.2017 for the purpose; allegedly with his express consent had in writing on the pretext of change/replacement of the old defective Electric Meter. Somehow, the impugned Demand/ Bill did not contain the details of the arrears contained within it and the same were also not made available to the complainant upon his asking/requesting the OP service providers.

7.       We further find that the complainant has proved his complaint-contented charges vide his evidentiary affidavit (Ex.C1) and other primary documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6; whereas the OP Corporation has filed its SDO’s affidavit (Ex.OP1) with all its rebuttals/denials endeavored to be proved vide the routine documents (Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7) that however fail to serve the marked purpose, in the absence of any cogent evidence. We are certainly not convinced as to how the non-defective Meter was first not-charged for the correct reading display as was later read-out/noted for the correct consumption during the Lab Testing and subsequently billed, arbitrarily.

8.       We are of the considered opinion that the opposite party service providers/corporation have acted in an arbitrary and unauthorized illegal manner in the present case and thus the present complainant shall not be liable to pay as per the OP determined consumption. Somehow, we find that the impugned demands as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the levied charges by the opposite party corporation has not been a matter of routine and also not in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per their own Sales & Distribution Policy in conformity with Electricity Rules & Regulations and the details were neither detailed out in the impugned Demand Bill nor any pre-notice was served, as requisite.

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties service providers to set-aside the impugned Memo/Bill # 442 dated 24.03.2017 for Rs.102,824/- besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation (for causing him undue harassment and expense through the presently forced upon litigation) within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid.

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

                             (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                               President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

MAY 07, 2018.                                                                        Member               

*YP*