Anupam complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to rectify the bill in dispute and to receive the actual consumption charges in nominal installments and also not to disconnect domestic electric connection of the complainant during the pendency of the present complaint. Complainant has claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to her due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and also claimed Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses after accepting this complaint in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that she had installed an electric connection bearing A/c No.G-44MF contract A/c No.3000309220 in her name in the house which was released in the year 2013 but opposite parties never issued any bill to the complainant despite the fact that complainant approached the opposite parties number of times and requested for issuance of bills regularly but opposite parties lingering the matter that the bills were being issued very soon.  It was pleaded that opposite parties issued a bill dated 08.06.2017 to the complainant for Rs.1,95,310/- which was payable upto 19.06.2017 in which total consumption was shown as 31149 units from 01.03.2013 to 08.06.2017 but complainant never used electricity energy to such extent for which bill in question had been issued. It was further pleaded that on receipt of bill in question complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and requested him to rectify the bill and to receive the actual consumption amount in nominal installments as it was the duty of the opposite parties to issue bills from time to time but no official of the opposite parties ever came to record meter reading at any time. Complainant also requested the opposite party No.1 to explain reasons for adding such like huge amount in disputed bill. It was also pleaded that complainant was called by opposite party No.1 to his office time and again after a gap of 2/3 days but after two callings opposite party No.2 refused to take any action into the matter and threatened the complainant for recovering the amount in question forcibly by adopting coercive methods and to disconnect her connection if she will not pay the disputed amount. It was next pleaded that complainant neither used electricity to this extent nor she came into arrears and no notice before including the such like huge amount in the disputed bill was served by the opposite parties to the complainant and the demand of the opposite parties without any checking and notice is illegal, against the rules, cryptic, arbitrary, without any basis and liable to be withdrawn and not binding upon the complainant and complainant was not in a position to pay such like huge amount/money. It was pleaded that it is a clear cut deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties who did not issue regular bills to the complainant despite her repeated requests and now issued bill for a period of 4 years altogether which also amounts to unfair trade practice 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 the written reply stating therein that the bill issued to the complainant was of consumption of electricity consumed by the electric meter of the complainant. It was stated that complainant had consumed 27196 units upto 08.06.2017 from 01.03.2013 for which bill issued to the complainant was Rs.1,94,420/- and the sanctioned load of the complainant was 15.906 K.W. It was further stated that complainant had not paid the above mentioned bill from 01.03.2013. It was also stated that complainant had consumed 564 units from 08.06.2017 to 30.06.2017 i.e. for 22 days for which current bill was Rs.4199/-. It was next stated that complainant had consumed 743 units from 30.6.2017 to 03.08.2017 i.e. for 34 days for which current bill was Rs.5394/-. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.     

4.      Counsel for the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Pripal Singh S.D.O. Ex.OP-1/A along with documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence of opposite parties.

6.       We have intently 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 Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present dispute/complaint. We observe that the complainant had been admittedly the long-time consumer of the OP Corporation Service Providers since the year 2013 being the valid holder of the DS Electric Connection # G44MF47 with A/c # 3000309220. The complainant has however filed the present complaint for statutory redressal of her hurt/grievance caused upon receipt of the very first consumption Bill on 08.06.2017 for an arbitrarily drawn excessive amount of Rs.1,95,310/- including past arrears etc. Somehow, the impugned Demand/Bill did not contain any logic and details of the arrears and these were also not made available to the complainant upon her requesting the OP service providers who instead threatened to disconnect her supply on account of non-payment of overdue Bills. The complainant has expressed her inability to pay such a substantial amount in lump sum and that too at such a short notice and thus prompted the present complaint seeking continuation of electric supply and setting aside of the impugned Bill being arbitrary and disproportionate to her connected load as well as to her subsequent consumption.

7.       We further find that the complainant has proved her grievance-contented charges qua her compliant vide her evidentiary affidavit (Ex.Cw1/A) and evidentiary documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3; whereas the OP Corporation has filed its SDO’s affidavit (Ex.OP1/A) with all its rebuttals/denials endeavored to be proved vide the supporting documents (Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6) exhibiting the bi-monthly consumption bills post the impugned Bill that however fail to serve the marked purpose and to explain as to how no consumption Bill was issued to the complainant during the intervening period of four years i.e., from 2013 to 2016. The post-dispute Bills are ambiguous in the absence of any cogent evidence as under normal routine circumstances the applicable electricity rules do not prescribe forcible recovery of arrears of more than two years. The OP1 SDO has alleged (Ex.OP1/A) that the complainant has been a chronic defaulter but has failed to produce any supporting evidence by way of the intervening (2013 to 2016) unpaid consumption Bills drawn per the exhibited Meter Readings (Ex.OP1) other than the disputed impugned bill. We are certainly not convinced with the defense produced by the OP Corporation so as to have satisfactorily rebutted the allegation of ‘arbitrariness’ amounting to deficiency in service alleged upon its functionaries and that lines them up to an adverse statutory award under the applicable legislation/statute. 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.

8.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite party service providers to set-aside the impugned Bill of 08.06.2017 for Rs.1,95,310/- and instead draw the actual consumption Bill (on the basis of the connected load/past consumption history) with effect from two years past dispute i.e., April’ 2015 onwards (with due appropriation of deposited amounts) upon the complainant besides to pay her Rs.10,000/- as compensation (for causing harassment and expense) and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation but 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. The complainant shall however pay (may be in installments as per the OP Corporation rules) all her redrawn consumption charges (in conformity with DS Electricity Rules), if not (already) paid, earlier. 

9.       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)

JULY 04, 2018.                                                                       Member               

*YP*