Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/26/2017

M/S GLOBAL GROUP OF INDUSTRY - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, DIBRUGARH ZONE, U.A.R., APDCL, DIBRUGARH - Opp.Party(s)

SRI MERAZ AKHTAR

08 Jan 2024

ORDER

 

Date of Argument- 18.11.2021

                                                                                                            Date of Judgement- 08.01.2024

 

 

         JUDGEMENT

 

1. The complainant has instituted this Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against O.P.s on the averments that the complainant firm namely M/S Global Group of Industries is situated at Red Cross, Road, P.S. & District Dibrugarh within the jurisdiction of this Forum. M/S Global Group of Industry was initially owned by her husband, Late Ayub Khan and after

his death, the same is now been inherited by his wife namely Taslima Khatoon and his son namely Imran Khan and in this case the complainant is represented by herself and her son who has duly authorized her to institute this complaint petition. The complainant is a consumer of APDCL, Dibrugarh electrical Sub-Division (III) vide consumer No.52000011629, Old consumer No.209000007855 in respect of the electricity connection as per sanctioned load installed in the premises of M/S Global Group of Industries and regularly paid the bills raised by APDCL without any default.

 

2. On 12.09.2017, suddenly the APDCL official from Dibrugarh electrical sub-Division visited the premises of M/S Global Group of Industries and made an inspection regarding the connection load of the consumer. After inspection the APDCL authority compelled the complainant to enhance the load to 5 K.W. and issued the supplementary bill vide Bill No.1237 amounting to Rs.11,199/- as the assessment bill as per clause No.21(b) as per average consumption of last six months. Finding no other alternative, the complainant agreed to get the electricity connection load enhanced to 5 K.W. The complainant though disputed the said bill but was compelled to make payment on the fear of disconnection of electricity supply to its premises, deposited a sum of Rs.6720/- on 14.09.2007 vide receipt No.600/364 and prayed to waive the balance amount citing its poor financial condition which it was going through at that time as Late Ayub Khan was diagnosed with cancer and a huge sum of money was spent in his treatment. Considering the prayer the O.P.s accepted payment of Rs.6720/- and agreed to reconsider about the balance amount of Rs.4,479/- of the complainant. It is stated that this amount as well as above load security amount already paid by the complainant at the time of taking original connection and then after she has been paying the bills raised by the O.P. No.3 regularly as such the complainant is not guilty of any fault.

 

3. It is averred that suddenly after seven years from that, on 25.08.2014 the complainant received another supplementary Bill for Rs.59,415/- vide Bill No.14994 which was issued as per order of the sub-Manager Revenue dated 25.08.2014. The complainant was bewildered to receive a second supplementary bill amount of Rs.59,415/- which was never mentioned as recoverable amount. The complainant had approached to the O.P. No.3 so many occasions for clarification for issuance of second supplementary bill as she had already paid the load enhancement charges as per First Supplementary Bill No.1237 dated 12.09.2007 as levied by the O.P. No.3 and thereafter paid monthly bills regularly. During this period the amount charged in the second supplementary Bill was never mentioned in any of the bills issued in between, therefore there could not have been any arrear of bill to be paid by the complainant. The complainant was also threatened to disconnection of the electricity supply whereas the O.P.s was still issuing regular monthly charges bills without showing the arrear and the consumer was regularly paying bills till the month of June 2017.  

 

4. Thereafter the complainant again received the Bill No.-M137A07S-40001761897 dated 10-07-2017, along with regular monthly charges of Rs.3,859/- the earlier amount of Rs.59,415/- was also charged as arrear on account of re-estimated energy charges. The representative of the complainant again sought clarification and she was informed by the concerned authority that the arrear amount charged in the last Bill dated 10.07.2017 is the same amount which was shown as arrear in the Bill No.14994 dated 25.08.2014. Thereafter complainant lodged a complaint before the O.P. No.3 on 14.08.2017 stating the above facts and requested to recall the Bill No.-M137A07S-40001761897 dated 10.07.2017 and accept the monthly electricity consumption charges and thereafter visited the office of the O.P. No.3 several times but till date the O.P. No.3 has not taken any action.

 

5. The complainant alleged that the last Bill vide No.M137A07S-40001761897 dated 10.07.2017 is clear abuse of the power vested in the Opposite parties and the complainant has no such arrear amount to be paid to the Opposite Parties. Even if it is admitted that on 14.09.2007 an amount of Rs.4,479/- remained to be paid after payment of Rs.6,720/- out of total amount of Rs.11,199/, even then also the Opposite Parties never demanded the said amount in its later bills or it was never shown as recoverable arrear in any of the later bills for next seven years and the same was deemed to have been waived by the O.P.s. Further, the amount of Rs.4,479/- could not have been increased from Rs.4,479/- to Rs.59,415/- from 12.09.2007 to 25.08.2014. Moreover, any arrear amount, which is not shown continuously for two years in the subsequent bills as recoverable arrear amount from the date when it first became due, cannot be recoverable arrear amount from the date when it first became due, cannot be recoverable from the consumer as per the provisions of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 and the O.P.s cannot cut off the supply of the electricity. Therefore the O.P.s have no right to raise the second and third supplementary bills against the consumer for any amount which might have remained unpaid in the year 2007.

 

6. It is averred that whole business of the consumer depends on power supply and any disruption in the power supply will badly affect the business of the complainant and may also render it bankrupt and therefore it is necessary to prevent the O.P. from disconnection the Electricity supply to the consumer. The complainant stated that keeping the proper record of the units of electricity consumed by the consumer and to raise proper bill against the units consumed, is the responsibility of the APDCL and the consumer cannot be burdened with a huge amount all of a sudden due to any discrepancy occurred in keeping of proper record by the APDCL Authorities. The complainant further alleged that there is no discrepancy or the reason of the supplementary bill is explained to the consumer till now yet the consumer is suddenly burdened with an additional amount of Rs.59,415/-. Moreover, compelling the complainant to pay the whole amount without any negotiation by showing threat of disconnection of power supply is nothing but plain blackmailing on part of the O.P.s.

 

7. Hence, the complainant is highly aggrieved and prejudiced by such deficient service, unfair trade practice and arbitral action of the O.P.s was compelled to file this complaint and prays before this Commission for grant the following relief/reliefs-

1. Cancel the Bill dated 10.07.2017 vide Bill No. M137A07S-40001761897 to the extent of Rs.59,415/-.
2. Grant compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the O.P. for deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and arbitral action of the O.P.;
3. Grant compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for causing pain, suffering and mental agony to the complainant;
4. Early settlement of the bill for alleged arrear amount;
5. The cost of the CP case and any other relief to which the complainant may be entitled.

 

8. After registering the complaint, notices were issued to the O.P.s and accordingly O.P.s appeared before this Commission and filed Written Statement contending interalia that the complainant has no right to sue the O.P.s as she is not attorned by her son and also not the proprietor of M/S Global Group of Industry and complainant is not consumer within the meaning of Section 2(d)(i) & (ii) and hence praying for dismissal of the complainant. The O.P. admitted that M/S Global Group of Industry was owned by Late Ayub Khan, since deceased, was consumer of the O.P.s being No.52000011629 but the present complainants are not consumer of the O.P.s. It is further stated that M/S global Group of Industries applied for enhancement of electric connection to 5 K.W. On 12.09.2007 the O.P.s inspected the premises and detected overload and accordingly assessment bill was served to consumer on the basis of load amounting to Rs.11,199/. On receipt of the demand bill, consumer made part payment of Rs.6,720/- on 14.09,2007 and assured that the balance amount would be paid within one month. The consumer did not pay the said amount on repeated demand of the O.P.s, though balance amount was demanded in each bill as arrear. However, the petitioners paid only running bills.

 

9. The O.P.s further submitted that the Accountant General during audit raised objection regarding assessment made earlier and asked to assess and prepare for 12 months as per clause 5.A.4.1 as such a revised bill was served to the complainant amounting of Rs.59,415/- on 25.08.2014 deducting earlier payment made by the complainant. Further the supplementary bill was demanded on 25.08.2014 along with earlier balance, as such, total outstanding remained is Rs.59,415/- only after deducting earlier payment of Rs.6,720/ made on 14.09.2007 by the complainant. It is stated that the O.P.s has made demand continuously but the complainant paid no attention to the demand made by the O.P.s.

 

10. It is also stated that the O.P.s had no knowledge about the visit of the office and also had not file any written representation about the bill. The O.P.s demanded payment of regular bills along with the arrear Rs.59,415/- but the complainant remained silent about the arrear bill. It is admitted that the consumer filed an objection and also requested to waive the assessment amount but the assessment amount was included in the bill as per audit objection and prepared the revised bill as per clause 5.A.4.1, hence the O.P. have no power to waive the bill amount unless written instruction from the higher appellate authority as such the consumer was verbally instructed to go to the appellate authority for re-consideration of revised bill. Further the revised bill was separately served to the consumer in addition to monthly energy bill as such it was not shown as arrear in the energy bill. It is stated that the complainant availed the service of high loaded connection without paying its charges as such they are liable to pay the bill with interest on arrear bill. Hence, question of prejudice by deficient services and unfair trade practice did not arise at all.

 

11. In this case Mrs. Taslima Begum has submitted her evidence on affidavit as C.W.1 on behalf of the complainant, M/S Global group of Industries on 24.04.2018 and exhibited as many as 68 documents in support of her claim. In the evidence the complainant reiterated the same facts as has been narrated in her complainant petition. It has been stated by the C.W.1 that the complainant firm namely M/S Global Group of Industries is situated at Red Cross Road, under P.S. and District Dibrugarh within the jurisdiction of this Forum. M/S Global Group of Industries was owned by her husband, Late Ayub Khan, and after his death, the same is now been inherited by herself and her son namely Imran Khan who has duly authorized her to institute this complaint petition. It is stated that M/S Global Group of Industries is the consumer of APDCL (erstwhile A.S.E.B), Dibrugarh Electrical Sub Division-III, vide consumer Account No.52000011629, Old Consumer No.209000007855, in respect to an electricity connection installed in its premises. And the consumer availed the electricity as per the sanctioned load and regularly paid the bills raised by the APDCL without any default.

 

12. Suddenly on 12.09.2007, the ASEB Official from Dibrugarh Electrical Sub Division visited the premises of the consumer and made an inspection regarding the connected load of the consumer. After inspection the complainant was compelled to enhance the load to 5 K.W. and issued a supplementary Bill vide Bill No.1237 amounting to Rs.11,199/-. Having found no other alternative, the consumer agreed to get the electricity connection load enhanced 5 to K.W. The consumer though disputed the said bill but was compelled to make payment on the fear of disconnection of electricity to its premises deposited a sum of Rs.6,720/- vide receipt No.600/364 on 14.09.2007 and the O.P.s agreed to reconsider about the balance amount of Rs.4.479/. This amount paid by the consumer was a part and above the load security amount already paid by the consumer at the time of taking original connection and thereafter have been paying the bills raised by the O.P. No.3 regularly. (Ext. No.2 to 10 are the monthly bills and payment receipts till 26.08.2014).

 

13. Suddenly after seven years the complainant received another supplementary bill of Rs.59,415/- vide Bill No.14994 dated 25.08.2014 (Ext No.11 is the Supplementary Bill dated 25.08.2014). The complainant stated that she had already deposited the requisite amount as per the First Supplementary Bill vide Bill No.1237 dated 12.09.2007 and has been paying her monthly bills regularly but the alleged balance amount of Rs.59,415/- was never mentioned as recoverable amount. The complainant approached to the O.P. No.3 a number of times for clarification. As the complainant had already paid the load enhancement charges as levied by the O.P. No.3 in the year 2007 and thereafter paid all the bills regularly and during this period the amount charged in the second Supplementary Bill was never mentioned in any of the bills issued in between, thereafter there could not have been any arrear of bills to be paid by the consumer. However, after that also, the O.P.s again started issuing regular monthly charges bill and the consumer paid those bills regularly till the month of June 2017. (Ext No.12 to 66 are monthly bills and payments receipts).

 

14. The complainant again received the Bill No.M137A07S-40001761897 dated 10.07.2017, in which apart from the regular monthly charges of Rs.3,859/-, another amount of Rs.59,415/- was also charged as arrear on account of re-estimated energy charges. (Ext No.67 is the said Bill No.M137A07S-40001761897 dated 10.07.2017). Complainant lodged a complaint on 14.08.2017 and requested the O.P.s to recall the aforesaid bill dated 10.07.2017 and accept the monthly electricity consumption charges and thereafter visited the office of the O.P. No.3 several times but no action has taken on the complaint. It is stated that even if it is admitted that on 14.09.2007 an amount of Rs.4,479/- was remained to be paid after payment of Rs.6,720/- out of total amount of Rs.11,199/-, even then the O.P.s never demanded the said amount to be paid by the consumer in its later bills or it was never shown as recoverable arrear in any of the later bills for next seven years and the same was deemed to have been waived by the O.P.s. Moreover, the amount of Rs.4,479/- could not have been increased from Rs.4,479/- to Rs.59,415/- from 12.09.2007 to 25.08.2014. Keeping the proper record of the units of electricity consumed by the consumer and to raise proper bill against the unit consumed, is the responsibility of the APDCL, and the consumer cannot be burdened with a huge amount all of a sudden due to any discrepancy occurred in keeping of proper record by the APDCL authorities. Moreover, no discrepancy or the reason of the supplementary bill is explained to the consumer till now yet the consumer is suddenly burdened with an additional amount of Rs.59,415/-. Therefore, the O.P.s have no right to raise the second and third supplementary bills against the consumer for any amount which might have remained unpaid in the year 2007.

 

15. The C.W. 1 further stated that the O.P.s used to raise regular bills including the disputed bill amount of Rs.59,415/- and while the consumer went to the office of the O.P.s to pay the current bill excluding the disputed amount, O.P.s refused to accept the same. Presently the O.P.s has served a bill dated 07.04.2018 amounting to Rs.99,934/- which include the disputed amount of Rs.59,415/- and outstanding surcharge of Rs.9,202.98/-. Hence the consumer cannot be made liable to pay outstanding surcharge of Rs.9,202.98/- due to illegal activities of the O.P.s and prayed to cancel the said amount. (Ext No.69 is the said Bill dated 07.04.2018).  

 

16. On the other hand Sri Sidhanta Rana Saikia, SDE, Dibrugarh Electrical Sub-Division-III APDCL(UAR) representing the U.A.R., APDCL, Dibrugarh submitted his evidence on affidavit on behalf of all the O.P.s as D.W.-1 on 07.06.2018 and exhibited no document to rebut the case of the complainant. D.W. 1 stated that the owner of M/S Global Group of Industries is not consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant after demise of her husband, Late Ayub Khan, did not apply for change of the consumer’s name nor the complainant was authorized by the heirs of the consumer.

 

17. D.W.1 further stated that the complainant applied for enhancement of load of electricity connection for 5 KW on 12.09.2007, overload was detected on inspection and accordingly assessment bill was served to consumer amounting to Rs.11,199/- only and paid Rs.6,720/- on 14.09.2007 by the consumer as part payment and assured that the balance amount would be paid within one month. But the complainant did not pay on repeated demand made by the O.P. During audit by Accountant General of Assam, the Auditor objected and asked to assess and prepare 12 months as per clause 5.A.4.1 and accordingly a revised bill was prepared and served on the consumer amounting to Rs.59,415/- on 25.08.2014, deducting the earlier payment made by the consumer. However, the complainant surprisingly after expiry of 3 years, filed the present complainant which is barred by law.

 

18. It is stated that the complainant could have approach the consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, established under 42 of the Indian Electricity Act, which is an independent Forum and also other Forums, mentioned on the overleaf of the bill. The D.W. 1 Stoutly denied any deficiency of services, professional mis-conduct, black-mailing as alleged by the complainant and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

19. The complainant filed written argument on 18.11.2021 reiterating the same facts as narrated in the complaint petition and evidence in affidavit and relied on decision of Abdul Hamid -vs- West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (reported in 2017 (175) AIC 673)  of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court wherein held that “the demand for the late payment surcharge for the first time after a period of two years when such sum becomes first due is illegal, contrary to the provision contained in Section 56(2) of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder.” The O.P.s did not file their written argument despite repeated opportunity is given by this Commission as such vide order dated 30.05.2022 this commission closed the written argument of the O.P.s and fixed the case for judgement.

 

20. It is also to be mentioned here that during the pendency of the present complaint case the O.P. is regularly sending monthly bills as per consumption including the disputed amount of Rs.59,415/- on 24.04.2018. While the complainant went to the office of the O.P. to pay the regular monthly bill excluding the disputed amount of Rs.59,415/-, O.P.s refused to accept the same unless the disputed amount of Rs.59,415/- is paid. The complainant received a bill dated 07.04.2018 amounting to Rs.99,934/- including disputed amount of Rs.59,415/- and outstanding surcharge of Rs.9202.98/-. As such, the complainant had prayed vide petition No.227/18 to pass order directing O.P. to receive the monthly regular consumption bill excluding the disputed amount of Rs.59,415/- and outstanding surcharge of Rs.9202.98/- and after hearing both the parties this Commission vide order dated 24.04.2018 directed O.P.s to accept the regular monthly bills as consumed by the complainant excluding disputed amount of Rs.59,415/- and outstanding surcharge of Rs.9202.98/- till disposal of the present case.

Point to be decided

 

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties under the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether the complaint filed before this Commission is maintainable?
3. Whether the complaint was filed within the period of limitation?
4. Whether the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency of services towards the Complainant and has indulged in unfair trade practice as alleged by the Complainant?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs prayed for in the complaint petition?

 

Decisions and Reasons thereof

 

1. We have carefully gone through the averments of the complainant, written statement, affidavit along with annexed documents exhibited and written argument on record by both the parties and it is found that complaint has been filed in the name of the firm M/S Global Group of Industries and admittedly M/S Global Group of Industries is a consumer of the O.P.s vide consumer No.52000011629 which was initially owned by its proprietor Late Ayub Khan. Further there is specific averments in para 1 of the complaint petition as well as in the affidavit that after death of the proprietor, Ayub Khan, the aforesaid firm namely M/S Global Group of Industries is now been inherited by his wife Taslima Khatoon and his son namely Imran Khan and paying monthly electricity charges regularly which has been duly accepted by the O.P.s. It is also evident that monthly bills and supplementary bills are issued by the O.P.s in the name the firm M/S Global Group of Industries and the details of bill has been corroborated by the complainant by way of her affidavit as Exhibits as such there is no iota of doubt that the present complainant is a consumer under the O.P.s.

 

2. Regarding maintainability of the complaint, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd and others VS Anis Ahmed held that the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 run parallel form giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of “consumer” under Section 2(1(d) of the consumer Protection Act,1986. Hence the contention raised by the O.P.s that the complainant could have approach the consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, established U/S 42 of the Indian Electricity Act, which is an independent forum does not hold well in the eye of law as this Commission can also hear electricity matters as an additional remedy available to the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

3. From perusal of the complaint and order sheets it is found that the complaint was filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

 

4. About deficiency in service, we found that on 12.09.2007 the APDCL held an inspection at the premises of the complainant regarding the connection load of the consumer and compelled the complainant to enhance the load to 5 K.W. and issued the supplementary bill vide Bill No.1237 amounting to Rs.11,199/- and out of which Rs.6720/- was paid by the complainant vide receipt No.600/364 on 14.09.2007 and prayed to waive the balance amount. Considering the prayer of the complainant, the O.P. accepted payment of Rs.6720/- and agreed to reconsider about the balance amount of Rs.4,479/-. Thereafter, the complainant was paying monthly electricity bills regularly till 25.08.2014. But suddenly after seven years on 25.08.2014 the O.P.s issued another supplementary bill of Rs. 59,415/- vide Bill No.14994 as arrears which was never mentioned as recoverable amount. Complainant had approached to the O.P. No.3 several times for clarification for issuance of second supplementary bill as she had already paid the load enhancement charges as per First Supplementary Bill No.1237 dated 12.09.2007 and making regular payment of electricity bills from 12.09.2007 to 25.08.2014. After that O.P.s were issuing regular monthly charges bill without showing the arrear and the complainant paying the same till the month of June 2017.  Again on 10-07-2017, along with regular monthly charges of Rs.3,859/- the earlier amount of Rs.59,415/- was also charged as arrear on account of re-estimated energy charges which put the complainant in awkward position causing mental harassment. The complainant lodged a complaint before the O.P. No.3 on 14.08.2017 stating the above facts and requested to recall the Bill No.-M137A07S-40001761897 dated 10.07.2017 and accept the monthly electricity consumption charges and thereafter visited the office of the O.P. No.3 several times but all in vain. The main contention of the complainant is that the demand of Rs.59,415/- made by the O.P.s vide Bill No.M137A07S-40001761897 dated 10.07.2017 is time barred and thus illegal.

 

Rebutting the claim of the complainant D.W.1 stated in his evidence that during audit the Accountant General raised objection regarding assessment made earlier and asked to assess and prepare for 12 months as per clause 5.A.4.1 as such a revised bill was served to the complainant amounting of Rs.59,415/- on 25.08.2014 deducting earlier payment made by the complainant. The above statement of the O.P.s, obviously cannot be sustained as because on perusal of monthly bills and payment receipts (Ext No.2 to 10 and Ext No.12 to 66) it appears that the O.P.s issued monthly bills without showing arrear and the complainant has been paying the bills regularly and suddenly on 25.08.14 raised a supplementary bill amount of Rs. 59,415/- (Ext. No.11) which caused most inconvenience, undeserved situation. Apart from that the first supplementary bill was raised on 12.09.2007 and thereafter, the O.P. did not claim continuously for more than two years and suddenly on 25.08.2014 again raised the said amount as arrear. However as per Section 56(2) Electricity Act 2003- “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this Section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and license shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.” Hence it is evident from the aforesaid provision that no amount due from a consumer can be recovered after expiry of two years from the date on which the said amount first became due unless the amount in question has been shown regularly as arrear in the electricity bills. The complainant was charging from the period 14.09.2007 to 25.08.2014 deducting the earlier payment made by the consumer. However as per section 56(2) it creates bar against the recovery of any sum if not continuously shown as recoverable after a period of two years. In the present case, the amount sought to be recovered from the complainant was not shown as arrears in the monthly bills issued to the complainant prior to 25.08.2014 and thereafter subsequent monthly bills till June.2017. And admittedly the supplementary bills were issued and served separately to the complainant in addition to monthly energy bill. Therefore, in view of the mandate of section 56(2) of Electricity Act, electricity charges for the period prior to 26.08.2012 cannot be recovered. Apart from that the O.P. failed to produce any supporting evidence that they made continuous demand to the complainant as stated in para 8 in their Written statement. Further it is evident from Exhibit No.1 that the first arrear bill dated 12.09.2007 amounting Rs.11,199/- out of which complainant has already paid Rs.6720/- and the arrear of Rs.4479/- was not shown in the regular bills till 25.08.2014. The second supplementary bill was raised on 25.08.2014 amounting to Rs.59,415/- and the said arrear amount was not also shown in the regular bill for more than two years as recoverable amount and suddenly after two years i.e. on 10.07.2017 again claimed the said amount as arrear. As such, the alleged demand by the O.P.s neither legal nor justified and also violated the provision of Section 56(2) of  Electricity Act, 2003 hence they cannot claim the arrear amount from the complainant. The O.P.s had to issue regular bills to the complainant which would have caused no inconvenience to the complainant to pay but suddenly raise an exorbitant amount will naturally cause harassment and mental agony to the complainant as such there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P.s, hence, the complainant is entitled to reliefs claimed.

 

5. In view of above discussion, we allow the compliant of the complainant and pass the following order:-

 

1. The demand raised by the O.P.s vide Bill No.M137A07S-40001761897 dated 10.07.2017 of Rs.59,415/- is hereby set aside.
2. The O.P.s are directed not to charge the outstanding surcharge of Rs.9202.98/- as demanded vide Bill No. M137A07S-30003419873 dated 07.04.2018.
3. to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant for deficient service and unfair trade practice of the O.P.s.
4. to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

                All the awarded amounts be deposited into the credit of this Commission by Opposite Party No.1 to 3 within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this judgment and failure in compliance with this judgement an interest @ 9% p.a. will be charged from the date of filing this complaint till the date of payment.

               Send copy of this judgement and order to the Opposite Parties for compliance. Complainant is to take step.

              The instant C.C. No. 26/2017 is accordingly disposed of on contest.

              Next date fixed 23.02.204 for compliance.