Complainant Lakha Singh @ Lakhwinder Singh 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 withdraw the impugned demand amounting to Rs.32,700/- raised vide bill in question and to set aside/quash the bill and to issue bill after making proper consumption. Opposite parties be further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony alongwith litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has got installed an electric connection bearing Account No.(MK 22) 1413 Y and using the electricity, paying the consumption bills regularly to the opposite parties and nothing is outstanding against him and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. His connected load is 0.60 KW. He is very poor person and leading his life under below poverty line. He belongs to Mazbi Caste and as such the Govt. has declared him Scheduled Caste and he has been given concession of 400 units per bill. His bills have been coming in Minus, since he has not been consuming 400 units per bill cycle. Earlier in the month of March 2016, the Meter Reader visited his village and while checking the meter he  told him that his bill is of Rs.14,500/-. He approached to the opposite party no.3 to sort out the matter and they have removed the electric meter and sent the same to the Laboratory where the meter was found to be OK but he was not called in the Lab., nor his consent was taken. Afterward again in the month of August 2016, the opposite parties have again issued bill amounting to Rs.32,000/- to him. Actually the said bill is totally illegal, null and void and is not binding upon him. It was next pleaded that there are few equipments lying in his house which are running with the electricity such as fan and tube-light. Thereafter, he has approached to the opposite party no.3 and requested them to withdraw the illegal demand but of no avail.  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 submitting therein that complainant moved an application to the office of opposite party no.3/SDO PSPCL Ghoman, mentioning therein that he has received an excess bill amounting to Rs.32,220/- despite the fact that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and the consumption bill in dispute is exorbitant and he is not able to pay the same. He has made a request for removal of the internal defect in the Meter of his connection and to get the same checked. After giving the said application the complainant also deposited a Meter challenge fee in the sum of Rs.150/- under rules in the same day. As per the MCO No.25/650 dated 12.08.2016 the J.E. of the area removed the Meter from the premises of the complainant and recorded the particulars of the meter on the application given by the complainant and on other documents i.e. MCO and written  consent. The reading of the meter has been mentioned as 19616 on the application and on the Meter Change order (MCO) no.25/650 dated 12.8.2016 and also on the written consent letter signed by one Jagjit Singh. This meter was removed on 12.8.2016 the day when the complainant filed the application. This meter bearing No.134210 was removed in the presence of his son namely Jagjit Singh who signed the Meter change order and consent letter in order to check the Meter from ME Lab Batala in the absence of consumer. As such this Meter alongwith consent letter was produced in the ME Laboratory vide Challan No.64 on 23.08.2016 by the J.E. Partap Singh of Ghoman Sub Division. The meter was checked by the SDO ME Laboratory Batala same day in the presence of SDO Sub Division Ghoman and in the presence of another J.E. of ME Lab Batala. J.E. Partap Singh by whom the Meter was produced there, also remained present in the Lab. During the course of checking of the meter, the meter was put on the test bench of the Lab where it was O.K. The checking report has been mentioned in the challan and at that time the reading of the meter was also noted as 19616. The chalan/checking report bears the signatures of the officials present in the ME Lab at the time of checking of the meter alongwith the SDO of the ME Lab. As per the report of ME Lab. The meter was O.K. and working properly. The complainant has consumed the electricity and he is liable to make the payment of the disputed amount. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.     Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Pal A.A.E. Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally acceptable statutory 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 vide Ex.C1 had been admittedly the SC category consumer under the WSD Scheme of the OP service providers being holder of the 0.60 KW DS Electricity Supply with consumer A/c # MK221413Y; and the present dispute prompting on his being in receipt of repeatedly inflated consumption Bills since March’ 2016 with the last impugned Bill dated 06.08.2016 for Rs.32,700/- (Ex.C3) followed by the threats of disconnection of his electricity connection. The complainant has further stated that the present impugned demand was issued sans any pre-notice etc and in spite of his being eligible Ex.C5 for the benefit of free consumption of 400 units per Bill but the OP Corporation had been adamant not to rectify the impugned Bill. Further, the complainant at the OP’s advice also got his Electricity Meter checked Ex.C4 at the OP’s M E Lab but even that did not assist him and thus prompted the present complaint.       

7.       We further find that the OP Corporation in its written reply and in its Affidavit Ex.OP1 has deposed that the complainant had got the instant DS electricity connection under the WSD Scheme category of consumers but his consumption for August’ 2016 had been 4751 units and that fairly justified the issuance of the impugned Bill. Further, the DS Meter was checked at the OP’s ME Lab and found okay and thus the complainant has been liable to pay the impugned Bill. In order to contain its averments the OP service providers has produced Ex.OP3 the MCO (Meter Changing Order) with consent letter Ex.OP4 along with the Meter Checking Report Ex.OP5 but sans any statement/ deposition of the Field Staff who had executed the referred MCO and Meter Checking etc for reasons best known to them alone and that turn it all into a mere hearsay evidence. Further, the OP Service Providers Corporation has produced Ex.OP6 listing the complainant’s bi-monthly regular consumption indicating an excessive figure of impugned 4750 units in August’ 2016 but sans again any investigation to find out the reasons for the same. We find that the OP Corporation has not put forth any good logic/reason for having issued the demand on the basis of consumption on general routine basis but for an unusual exceptional excessive consumption that deserved a somewhat different treatment especially at the face of the ‘objections’ raised by the effective complainant. Further, we find that the OP Corporation have raised the impugned Bill without having served any pre-notice and having provided any opportunity to the complainant to get heard and represent/argue his case. Thus, we are certainly not convinced with the clarification as put forth by the OP Corporation to justify its act of having issued the impugned Bill that we are hereby pleased to set-aside. Moreover, the impugned demand as put forth upon the complainant for payment of his consumption Bills for his DS connection by the opposite party corporation/service providers has been admittedly not a matter of routine and the same has not even been proved to be in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per its Sales/Distribution Policy and the Rules & Regulations etc as framed there under. 

8.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party corporation to withdraw the impugned Bill (Ex.C3) and instead raise the applicable consumption charges with all the applicable benefits and on the basis of the complainant’s consumer status as per their terms of Sales and Distribution Policy and others etc besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of having received the copy of these orders. The complainant shall be liable to pay the consumption charges raised as per the settled rules and regulations etc along with completion of all the requisite formalities, if any.

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

           (Naveen Puri)

                                                                               President   

Announced:                                                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

March, 09 2017                                                       Member

*MK*