PER

Varinder Pal Singh, Saini, Member

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is a senior citizen and aged about 74 years who is hardly able to make his living by selling vegetables in front of a shop (Fadi). The complainant is consumer of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (PSPCL) and has been having one domestic electricity connection with account No. 3001009091 installed at his house at a small plot of about 60 Sq. meters at Tarn Taran. As such, the complainant is consumer of the opposite party and had been regularly paying the electricity consumption charges to the opposite party. The complainant has been a regular consumer of the opposite party for the last several years and his actual consumption of electricity over the last 2 years or so on an average has been around 8-10 units per day, with the monthly Bill also should be around Rs. 1,200/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month. It was found that for the last about 2 years, because of faulty meter and faulty billings, the complainant has been receiving bills. Copies of some relevant bills are enclosed as annexure C-1 to Ex. C-12 of very highly inflated and excessive amounts as is evident from the figures given in the table below:

The complainant is poor and illiterate man who does not understand the complexities of the billing process as it is very technical. It is so complex that even a well-educated person finds it extremely difficult to understand. During the last about 2 years, the complainant and his representatives have been regularly meeting the various PSPCL authorities and regularly visiting their office at Tarn Taran against excessive consumption of electricity shown in his bills and also to know how the bill amounts had been calculated and for correcting the same. The complainant has neither consumed this much electricity as he uses it only for lighting, fans, Fridge etc. and does not have heavy electric gadgets. His financial position also does not permit him to consume and pay so much. Most of the times, he was given false assurances that if he deposited particular amounts immediately, his bills would be corrected to the normal amount and excess payments made by him would be refunded or adjusted against his future bills. Acting on their assurances and promises, amongst others, he has already deposited following amounts of over Rs. 65,000/- (as per annexure C-13) in installments which he had to borrow at a heavy at the rate of 4% per month:-

1. On 6.11.2017 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-
2. On 7.11.2017 for an amount of Rs. 5,000/-
3. On 29.11.2017 for an amount of Rs. 6,610/-
4. On 20.12.2017 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-
5. On 29.1.2018 for an amount of Rs. 1,843/-
6. On 26.3.2018 for an amount of Rs. 16,908/-
7. On 16.4.2018 for an amount of Rs. 15,500/-

From the chart/ table mentioned above mentioned, it is very much evident that it is a case not only of faulty electricity meter which shows very excessive consumption of electricity, but also faulty billing by the PSPCL officials also. There is a serious gadbad (discrepancy) in the meter reading (opening and closing readings) adopted by the PSPCL officials which makes it clear that there has been doubt billing for as many as 10222 units of electricity. The amount excess charged because of double billing alone is of well over Rs. 1 Lakh. This is explained in the following Paras:-

1. Faulty Electricity Meter:

          As already stated above, the actual average 2- monthly consumption of electricity should not exceed 600 units in 2-months keeping in view the number and kinds of electric gadgets used by the complainant and history of the case.

          The electric gadgets used by the complainant are as:-

1. Light Tubes;    6
2. Fans;               4
3. Fridges            1
4. Geyser             1

          These gadgets are not used at the same time and cannot account for on an average consumption of more than 300 units in a month, or more than 600 units in 2- monthly billing cycle used by PSPCL. The complainant never had any access to the Electricity Meter which are installed outside the house in the street along with many other meters of other residents; and these have always been under the lock & key and seal of PSPCL leaving no chance of any tampering by the complainant.  2-Monthly on an average does not exceed 600 units is supported by the following Bills issued by PSPCL, even when meter has been faulty and showing much higher consumption. For example:

1. For 2 months Billing Cycle from 3.3.2017 to 8.5.2017 = 834 Units
2.  For 2 months Billing Cycle from 9.9.2017 to 14.11.2017=950 Units
3. For 2 months Billing Cycle from 14.11.1.217 to 9.1.2018= 274 Units
4. For 2 months Billing Cycle from 14.7.2018 to 6.9.2018= 747 Units
5. For 2 months Billing Cycle from 11.11.2018 to 19.1.2019 = 329 Units
6. For 2 months Billing Cycle from 19.1.2019 to 11.3.2019 = 424 Units

     Total consumption for 6 Billing Cycles      = 3558 Units

     Average consumption for One Billing Cycle        =  593 Units       

          When the electricity meter has been faulty. If excessive consumption because of fault of electricity meter is taken in to consideration, the actual consumption would still be much lower i.e. around 400 units one Billing Cycle of 2 months. It becomes clear from the last 2-Billing cycle when the Faulty meter was replaced by PSPCL on 11.11.2018. Total electricity consumption for the 4 months period covered 2 Billing cycle is of 757 units only i.e. 378 units per Billing cycle of 2 months. This proves beyond any doubt that very higher and excessive consumption billed by the PSPCL to the complainant is because of highly faulty Electricity Meter. Otherwise, there is no reason that the following Billing Cycle, some of which fall during winter season also when electricity consumption is comparatively much lower, should reflect such heavy consumption, when the average electricity consumption during even summer periods have been much lower at less than 600 units per Billing Cycle of 2 months as under:-

1. For 2 months Billing cycle from 12.7.2017 to 9.9.2017= 1967 Units
2. For 2 months Billing cycle from 9.1.2018 to 9.3.2018 = 2039 Units
3. For 2 months Billing cycle from 9.3.2018 to 8.5.2018 = 7745 Units
4. For 2 months Billing cycle from 8.5.2018 to 14.7.2018=2425 Units
5. For 2 months Billing cycle from 6.9.2018 to 11.11.2018=3313 Units,
6. For 2 months Billing cycle from 11.11.2018 to 9.1.2019 = 1991 Units

The complainant was shocked and literally fainted to receive the bill for the 2-months Billing Cycle from 9.3.2018 to 8.5.2018 wherein he was charged for an absolutely wrong, false, bogus consumption of 7745 units and the bill amount demanded was as much as Rs. 87,970. When the complainant approached the PSPCL authorities they verbally admitted that there was something seriously wrong and it appeared to be a case of double charging because the said consumption had already been charged in the earlier months. They promised to rectify the bills. Thereafter, the complainant approached the PSPCL authorities repeatedly, but instead of correcting the bill and other earlier bills, they started mounting pressure for depositing at least 50% of the amount immediately. They also assured that after depositing 50%, the PSPCL will correct the excessive bills, failing which Electricity supply would be discontinued.  Under coercion and threats of disconnection, the complainant deposited following amounts under pretest with the hope that bills would be corrected and he will get the refund of excess amounts paid by him. The complainant made further following payments to the opposite party on their assurances that the earlier bills will be rectified and he will be granted refund of the excess amounts paid or these will be adjusted against further Bills. Acting on their assurances and promises, the complainant was again forced to deposit follong amounts of Rs. 44,800/- (As per Annexure C-14) in installments which he again had to borrow at a heavy interest rate of 5% per month.

1. On 26.6.2018 for an amount of Rs. 9,900/-
2. On 26.6.2018 for an amount of Rs. 9,500/-
3. On 2.7.2018 for an amount of Rs.  5,600/-
4. On 29.8.2018 for an amount of Rs. 9,900/-
5. On 29.8.2018 for an amount of Rs. 9,900/-

Total          Rs. 44,800/-

The complainant during the last one year and a half has already deposited amounts totaling Rs. 1,10,000/- which were all borrowed being much beyond his capacity. Shocking, PSPCL has raised another bogus demand of about the same amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Besides taking several rounds of PSPC offices and their authorities and after making several written requests and representations, he has not been getting any response and any remedial action. As he was not in a position to meet their further illegal and outrageous demands, the PSPCL disconnected his electricity supply from 11.3.2019 and is suffering great financial, physical and mental harassment.

Double charging of same consumption:

          The complainant was further shocked to find that instead of correcting the bill amounts, the OP-PSPCL stated sending inflated bills again and again and for the consumption which had already been charged in the preceding months. It is clear case of double charging is further apparent from the fact that the OP-PSPCL had already charged him up to 8183 units in the bill for 2 months Billing cycle from 14.11.2017 to 9.1.2018 and had already charged him up to 9.3.2018. Shockingly, in the next Bill for 2-months Billing Cycle from 9.3.2018 to 8.5.2018, instead of the Old (Opening) Reading at 10,222 units, it showed the Old (Opening) Reading at 1 Unit only, and the new (closing) Reading was shown at 7608 units and thereby charging the complainant for 7745 units which was wrong on the face of it for the following 2 reasons.

1. With old reading at 1 unit and new reading at 7608 Units assuming everything was right, the maximum consumption OP could have charged the complainant, in any case, could not be for more than 7607 Units. But the opposite party charged the complainant for much higher Units i.e. for 7645 Units which was apparently wrong, illogical and illegal.
2. Further, the opposite party having already charged the complainant for up to 10,222 units in the Bill for 2-months Billing Cycle from 9.1.2018 to 9.3.2018, the Old (Opening) Reading should have been taken / adopted at 10,222 units, and not 1 unit, in the new bill for the next 2 months Billing cycle from 9.3.2018 to 8.5.2018 as has been done by the opposite party. Thus the opposite party has excess charged the complainant by 10222-1=10221 Units. There was absolutely no justification or reason for taking the Old (Opening) reading at 1 unit, instead of actual reading of 10,222 units, up to which the complainant had already been charged.
3. There are strong reason to believe the opposite party i.e. PSPCL and its executives are deliberately making malafide, false and exaggerated claims against the complainant which are of totally fraudulent in nature with a view to cause undue harassment to the old complainant and his family.
4. The very fact that Meter reading was 10,222 units on 9.3.2018 and meter reading was less at 7608 units 2 months later on 8.5.2018, proves that there was something seriously wrong with the Electricity Meter and the reading taken by the PSPCL officials from time to time, which appear to have been recorded on estimate basis while sitting in office, without having a look at the Electricity  meter. There are strong reasons to believe that the meter reading official was not taking actual reading and readings recorded in the bills were fake readings without any basis. The actual readings were very different and much less which had not been disclosed by the opposite party –PSPCL. Inspite of repeated requests and visits to the officials of PSPCL, including the SDO and the SE, Tarn Taran, nobody has clarified to him till date as to when the complainant had been already charged up to the reading of 10222 till 9.3.2018, how could the opposite party adopt and start with the reading of 1 unit on 9.3.2018 and charge the complainant doubly for the same consumption.

New Electricity Meter 

          Nobody in the PSPCL was genuinely acting on complaints of complainant, in October-November 2018, the complainant approached the SE (Superintendent Engineer) of the opposite party through his nephew Sh. Ashok Kumar Manchanda, former Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, with a request to instruct the lower authorities to look in to his genuine complaints and correct the bill amounts. The SE was kind enough to instruct the lower authorities to make a thorough check up and replace the meter, if found faulty. He assured Mr. Manchanda that PSPCL will observe the consumption pattern of the complainant for about 4-6 months if New meter revealed substantial discrepancies, then the complainant will be charged for the old period also as per the pattern revealed by the new meter. Inspite of SE’s instructions, the officials of the Opposite party took 15-20 days to check the meter and eventually installed a New Electricity Meter w.e.f. 11.11.2018 as the old one was found faulty. But unfortunately, the opposite party instead of waiting for the outcome of the new electricity meter, kept mounting pressures on the complainant for further payments which was unjust and illegal, but also beyond his capacity. 2.1.2019, the complainant again approached the SE through a written E mail communication (Annexure C-15) from Sh. Ashok Manchanda, requesting the opposite party not to pressurize for making further payments as already much more than the due amounts had been deposited and requested the SE to please correct/ rectify the earlier bills in the light of actual consumption less than 10 units per day as revealed by the New Electricity Meter.  Though the SE assured telephonically, but the lower officials kept on pressing for undue payments, with threats of discussion, sometimes with ulterior motives. The complainant wrote several e-mails to the several authorities of opposite parties including SDO, Superintending Engineer, and even the Chief Engineer through his nephew Shri Ashok Manchanda but no action was taken and the opposite party continued with its illegal pressure tactics to extract more money.  The copies of emails written during the last 4 months are Annexure C-15 . new electricity meter was installed w.e.f. 11.11.2018 and remained there for 4 months  till 11.3.2019 when it was removed and supply disconnected without any notice and against all assurances rules and norms, putting the complaint to immense unwarranted hardship and harassment. In the 4 months period from 11.11.2018 to 11.3.2019 it recorded a consumption of 753 units. Instead of revising the old bills according to the actual consumption pattern revealed by the new electricity meter, the opposite party has disconnected the electricity supply and meter. If the pattern and consumption revealed by new meter is considered, the actual consumption being less than 600 units for each bill cycle of 2 months, the actual average bill will be in the range of Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 3000 per 2 months. As the complainant has already deposited over Rs. 1,10,000/- the opposite party was liable to refund a very major part of the amount already deposited. The complainant approached the PSPCL authorities many times during the last about 10 months to correct the apparent mistake in bills, but nobody is hearing his repeated pleas and requests, and on the contrary has disconnected the supply of electricity w.e.f. 11.3.2019 which is very essential for life. It is an act of criminal negligence by the PSPCL authorities and of deliberate harassment for no justified reason to a poor senior citizen of 74 years and his family. This is against the law and public policy of the Government. Besides raising bogus bills for bogus consumption against the complainant the opposite party has further been including further other illegal, unjust and charges of penal nature in a surreptitious manner the basis of which has never been given in the bills nor otherwise explained also. This is further inflating the bill amounts with charges which are neither due nor lawful and this is further adding to the misery, difficulties and harassment being faced by the complainant. Even the account statement of the opposite party showed that on 27.6.2017, the amount of Rs. 40,680/- was refundable to the complainant but he was shocked to see that on the very same day i.e. on 27.6.2018 a bill of Rs. 52,130/- was raised against him which was totally bogus, false and frivolous amount. To this effect the complainant again approached the opposite party and made a request to them to rectify/ correct the electricity bill as he is a poor person and his actual electricity consumption and usage was very low, as he was not having any heavy electric appliance installed at his residential house. Thus the total amount deposited by the complainant were as under-

1. On 6.11.2017 for an amount of Rs. 10000/-
2. On 7.11.2017 for an amount of Rs. 5000/-
3. On 29.11.2017 for an amount of Rs. 6610/-
4. On 20.12.2017 for an amount of Rs. 10000/-
5. On 29.1.2018 for an amount of Rs. 1843/-
6. On 16.4.2018 for an amount of Rs. 15500/-
7. On 26.3.2018 for an amount of Rs. 16908/-
8. On 16.4.2018 for an amount of Rs. 15500/-
9. On 26.6.2018 for an amount of Rs. 9900/-
10. On 26.6.2018 for an amount of Rs. 9500/-
11. On 2.7.2018 for an amount of Rs. 5600/-
12. On 29.8.2018 for an amount of Rs. 9900/-
13. On 29.8.2018 for an amount of Rs. 9900/-

Total                    110000

          The total electricity consumption as per the new meter for the period from 11.11.2018 to 11.3.2019 was 753 units only. The average daily consumption was 8 units only and the average monthly consumption was 240 to 250 units only. As the electricity meter was always under the lock and seal of the opposite party, there cannot be any question of tampering with the electric meter, and nobody has ever alleged also. From 11.11.2018 when the old meter was replaced by a new meter to 11.3.2019, when the supply was arbitrarily disconnected without any notice, the average reading was around 6-7 units per day. It also showed that earlier meter was having some technical fault in it that’s why it was showing wrong electric reading. The complainant was shocked when the official of the opposite party visited the house in the month of May 2017 without giving any prior intimation to the complainant for recovering the illegal, arbitrary, false and forged electric bill but the complainant requested them to rectify/ correct the electric bill as the matter was not resolved by the opposite party. The opposite party without giving any prior notice to the complainant disconnected their meter in the month of March 2018 without caring the legal aspect of the case of the complainant. The opposite party has totally played a biased role towards the complainant in a rectifying/ correcting the electricity bill. The opposite party was demanding a bill of Rs. 1,10,680/- from the complainant. The complainant has prayed that 

1. That the opposite party may kindly be directed to immediately restore the electricity supply of the complainant running at his residence house, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play 
2. The opposite party may kindly be directed to rectify/ correct the electricity bills, delete the bogus amounts and charges of penal nature being levied without any basis, refund with interest on extra amounts got deposited under threats of disconnection and false assurances of rectifying all old bills and as such he is not liable to pay any other amount for bogus consumption and bills
3. The opposite party may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation as well as Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses for causing harassment and hardship to the complainant by demanding illegal amounts and for disconnecting electricity supply without any prior notice or proper reasons.

Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith copies of electricity bills Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-13, Proof of payments Ex. C-14, C-15, E mails written to M/s PSPCL Ex. C-16.

2        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. The agreement for supply of energy is in between PSPCL and the consumer. The supply of energy is given by PSPCL and the consumption bills are also issued by PSPCL. The present complaint should have been filed against PSPCL and the complaint against SDO and Sr. XEN alone is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The amount claimed from the complainant is for consumption of electricity and is not by way of any Penalty etc. The complainant is liable to make payment of the consumption charges as claimed from him and cannot be challenged by him through the present complaint. As per rules of opposite party applicable in such like cases, if any consumer feels aggrieved for the amounts claimed through consumption bills then as per rules the bill can be challenged by depositing necessary fees for the purpose. But in the present case no such challenge has been made by the complainant. The complainant cannot approach this commission without availing the alternative remedy provided under the rules. On merits, it was pleaded that the opposite parties are not aware about the area of the plot where the house of the complainant is constructed and the electricity connection is installed. The present complaint has been filed in April 2019 and as per contents of Sr. No. 13 of Para No. 3 of the complaint, the supply of the complainant has been disconnected on 11.3.2019 and as such, he was not consumer of the opposite party on the date of filing of the complaint as per his own version. Until the connection was got restored the present complaint is not maintainable. The consumption is recorded by the electricity consumption meter and cannot be by way of imagination of the complainant. In letter dated 2.1.2019 by the complainant to SE PSPCL Tarn Taran  it has been mentioned by the complainant in Para No. 6 of this letter that his two married sons have also two separate dwelling units on the same plot and do not have separate electricity connections and which clearly goes to show that they were also consuming electricity from this connection. It is further mentioned that the complainant has never challenged the monthly consumption bills issued by him by depositing the necessary challenge fees as provided under rules of PSPCL. Nor he has ever challenged the accuracy of the meter of his electricity connection installed on his premises by depositing necessary fee for the purposes. The contention of the complainant that meter was faulty is totally irrelevant and is by way of an afterthought and is liable to be rejected. The complainant himself has given the details of the consumption for various months from 3.3.2017 to 11.3.2019.  There is no complexities of the billing process a all the necessary details of consumption etc. are given in the bills itself and as admitted by the complainant himself. The complainant has himself on the basis of his oral requests deposited the amounts as part payments of the bill amounts and was never given any assurance for refund or adjustment in future bills. By making request for part payment and by making part payment the complainant has admitted the correctness of the bills issued to him. The complainant has not explained as to how he has come to the calculation of 600 units as consumption for 2 months. The reference may kindly be made to contents of Para No. 3 of the complaint where at serial No. 5 consumption for 1 month is shown as 270 units at serial No. 11 and is shown 323 units and at serial No. 12 and is shown as 424 units i.e. even less than the consumption claimed by the complainant. SDO City Sub Division Tarn Taran had gone to remove the meter installed in the house of complainant for getting it checked in the laboratory on the allegations of the complainant that the meter is running fast and had found the following load installed at his premises.

Lamps =14 Numbers.

Fans =8 Numbers

Plugs = 19 Numbers

Power Plug= 1 Number

Submersible = 1 Number

and the report was prepared at the spot on 27.11.2018 itself and duly signed by the consumer representative and it clearly shows that the detail of the load given by the complainant are totally wrong and false. The load in any premises is calculated on the basis of the installations + Power Plug etc. and there is no rule on the basis of which the consumption cannot be more than 300 units in a month and as alleged wrongly and falsely by the complainant. Although the meters are installed outside the houses but even then it is the duty of the consumer to keep them in proper condition and if there is any damage to the meter in any manner then immediate intimation has to be given to the concerned officials. No allegations of tempering of the meter has been alleged against the complainant. There is no reason given for consumption of 400 units for 2 months as wrongly and falsely alleged.  The meter of the complainant was found burnt and was removed from the spot on 30.11.2018 and a new meter was installed. The removed meter was sent for checking/ testing in meter testing laboratory of PSPCL at Verka (Amritsar) and it was found that the burnt meter had recorded the consumption 14250.1 Units and the same was billed to him for which he is liable to make the payment. The meter reading official was taking actual reading at the spot and there was no reason for recording any fake reading. The meter was changed with its initial at 1 unit.  The consumption bill issued to a consumer are itself a notice. In case of nonpayment of consumption charges of bills within due date the connection is liable  to be disconnected after due date for payment and no separate notice was for disconnection is either mandatory or is required to be issued.  The opposite party has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of SDO City Sub Division PSPCL Tarn Taran Ex. OP/1, Checking report dated 27.11.2018 Ex. OP/2, Laboratory Test Report dated 24.12.2018 Ex. OP/3, Meter change order dated 27.11.2018 Ex. OP/4, Meter replacement Job finish dated 30.11.2018 Ex. OP/5, Calculation sheet of consumption from 8.5.2018 to 13.7.2019 Ex. OP/6, Consumption Data of complainant from 23.12.2014 to 13.7.2019 Ex. OP/7.

3        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite party and denied the version of the opposite parties and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint.

4        We have carefully gone through the record and have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties.

5        In the present case according to complainant, the opposite parties have sent the disputed bill to the complainant on the basis of inflated reading. From the record, it is evident that the reading from the period 9.3.2018 to 11.11.2018 are on very much higher side as compared to sanctioned load to the consumer. In checking report dated 27.11.2018 Ex. OP2 of JE/SDO City Sub Division Tarn Taran, it is reported by him that the pulse of meter is running very fast at the time of checking and in the said checking report he also reported that there are 14 CFL lamps, 8 Fans,  19 Plugs Submersible motor 1 and Power plug 1 in his report, the JE has not mentioned that any high energy consuming device i.e.  AC etc. have been installed. So it is beyond the imagination that how the complainant has consumed 7745 units from 9.3.2018 to 8.5.2018 and 2425 units from 8.7.2018 to 6.9.2018 and 3313 from 6.9.2018 to 11.11.2018. The checking official i.e. JE/SDO City Sub Division Tarn Taran himself reported in his report that the meter is running very fast. Later on, after checking report the meter of the complainant was replaced and new meter was installed and on watching the consumption data of new meter it was seen that only consumption between 300 to 500 units in two months were consumed. So on the basis of consumption of new meter and consumption of meter prior to defective meter may be watched and account of the consumer may be overhauled on average basis for the same months and amount if any received in excess either be refundable to the complainant or adjustable in the next bills of the complainant.  The opposite parties have visited the office of the opposite parties several times for rectifying the same but the opposite parties have not heard the complainant. By issuing inflated bills without checking the working of the meter to the complainant and not correcting the bill it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite party if already refunded any defaulting amount same may be adjusted.  

6        The opposite party has taken objection that the complainant is no more consumer of the PSPCL, as such he cannot file the complaint but the connection of the complainant has already been restored, as such the complainant falls under the definition of consumer. Secondly, on the one hand, opposite parties in their written version has taken the plea that they are not aware about the area of plot where the house of the complainant is constructed and electricity connection installed in the said house. On the other hands, official of the PSPCL i.e. SDO City Sub Division visited the house of the complainant to remove the meter for getting it checked in the laboratory, as such opposite parties cannot take plea that the whereabouts of the house and electricity connection. The report prepared by SDO/JE at the spot itself shows that the complainant is not using any device which is consuming much energy. This is beyond imagination how a person can use electricity of 7745 units in two months. The report of J.E./ SDO Ex. OP2 clearly indicates that meter was faulty as meter pulse was running very fast, as such the bill has come on the higher side.  

7        In light of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed. The inflated bills from 9.1.2018 to 11.11.2018 are quashed.  However, the opposite parties is at liberty to recover the consumption charges of the disputed period from the complainant on average basis of preceding 6 months. The amount deposited by the complainant if any by the order of this commission during the pendency of the present complaint either return to the complainant or adjust in the next bills of the complainant. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties unnecessarily. The complainant is also entitled to 15000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10000/- as litigation expenses. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission

18.01.2023