Complainant Bhim Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to withdraw the amount of Rs.57190/- added in the bill dated 23.2.2015 in account no.G-31CF-221187W. He has also claimed Rs.20,000/- for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by him all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he has got an electric connection bearing account no.G-31CF-221187W and paying the bills regularly to the opposite parties without any default and as such he is the consumer of the opposite parties. It was pleaded that on 10.9.2014 opposite party no.1 installed new meter and prior to installation of new meter the reading of the meter was 8322 units. Opposite parties issued bill dated 24.10.2014 which was paid by the complainant. Opposite parties again issued bill dated 20.12.2014 amounting to Rs.4140/- and the was also paid by the complainant. The average bill on the basis of consumption of meter of complainant comes from Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/. It was further pleaded that on 23.2.2015 opposite parties issued bill to the complainant amounting to Rs.62868/-. Complainant met with the opposite party no.1 and requested them to withdraw the amount added in the impugned bill illegally. The opposite parties told that they have added Rs.57190/- on the basis of 'F' Code so they cannot withdraw the same. It was also pleaded that status of the meter of the complainant was 'O' means 'OK' on every bill, so how opposite parties added Rs.57190/- in 'F' Code. Moreover new meter which was installed on 17.4.2014 also giving unit consumption equal to old meter. Opposite party no.1 added Rs.57190/- in 'F' Code illegally without any difference of consumption of units in old and new meter. It was next pleaded that complainant met with the opposite party no.1 on 4.3.2015 and requested them to withdraw the amount of Rs.57190/- added in bill dated 23.2.2015 of complainant without the difference of consumption of old and new meter installed on 10.9.2014 but they refused to do so, hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as the amount in question has been demanded on account of difference/balance of charges of electricity consumed. Complainant has wrongly arrayed the opposite parties no.2 and 3 as there is no posts S.E. and XEN Dhariwal. There is only posts of Addl. S.E./Sr. XEN Dhariwal so that present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties but he has not paid the electric bills regularly. It was further admitted that the bills issued to the complainant on average basis and not on the basis of actual consumption of units. It was stated that the meter of the complainant was changed in April, 2014 vide M.C.O. dated 17.4.2014 but entry of the same was not accepted by the Computer due to some technical fault and bill was prepared by the Computer on average basis i.e. bill for 691 units in August, 2014 which was according to reading of meter 1263 to 2972 units (hence chargeable units were 1709 Units). It was stated that in the next bill of October, 2014 (10/2014) the reading was obtained 2972 to 7938 (hence chargeable units comes to 4966 units but bill was again issued of 605 units on average basis. It was further stated that again meter was changed on 10.9.2014 and at the time of M.C.O. the reading of the meter was 7938 when old meter was removed. The reading of new meter was 8322/- on 10.9.2014 and in the next bill of 10/14 the reading was recorded as 8322 to 9500 (hence chargeable units were 1178 Units) but bill was issued for an amount of Rs.4128 of 547 units on average basis. It was also stated that total units of above said three bills come to 1843 only while as per reading obtained from the meter for the last three bills comes to 7853 units but the charges have received only for 1843 units on average basis. It was stated stated that opposite parties are entitled to recover the charges of balance units i.e. 6010 units which comes to Rs.48579/- which was claimed from the complainant alongwith surcharge total of which comes to Rs.57190/-. It was further stated that above mentioned three bills were issued on average basis as due to technical problem Computer did not prepare the same according to the reading of the meter. It was also stated that opposite parties have issued bill to the complainant for an amount of Rs.62868/- in which balance amount of previous three bills has been added and the same is legally recoverable. It was denied that complainant met with the opposite parties on 4.3.2015. It was admitted that second time meter was changed on 10.9.2014. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with cost.
- Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.
- Concerned S.D.O. of the opposite parties has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.
- We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. As per version of the complainant that he is regularly paying the bills to the opposite parties without any fault. On 10.9.2014 opposite party no.1 installed new meter and prior to installation of new meter, the reading of meter was 8322 units. After it opposite parties sent bill on 24.10.2014 which complainant paid. Next bill opposite parties sent on 20.12.2014 of Rs.4140/- which was also paid by complainant. The average bill on the basis of consumption of meter of complainant comes from Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/-. On 23.2.2015 opposite parties sent bill of Rs.62868/- and in this bill added Rs.57190/- on the basis of 'F' Code. Opposite party no.1 added Rs.57190/- in 'F' Code illegally without any difference of consumption of units in old and new meter. On the other hand the opposite party has submitted that meter of the complainant was changed in April, 2014 vide M.C.O. Dated 17.4.2014, but entry of M.C.O. was not accepted by the Computer due to some technical fault, hence bill was prepared by the Computer on average basis. Total units of three bills comes to 1843 only, while according to readings obtained from meter for the last three bills comes to 7853 units, but charges have received only for 1843 units on average basis. The opposite parties is entitled to balance charges which comes to Rs.57190/-. The above mentioned three bills were issued on average basis because due to technical problem computer did not prepare the said three bills according to meter readings. The previous three bills amount is legally recoverable.
8. On perusal of file it transpired that no notice has been issued to the complainant before adding the above said huge impugned amount in the current bill. No one should be condemned unheard. An opportunity must be given for hearing before imposing such huge amount in the bill. Here no opportunity has been given for hearing before adding this bill whereas the complainant is paying the bills regularly. Complainant has right to know what he is paying. The written reply filed by the opposite parties to complaint is also non speaking one and vague. The opposite parties cannot take benefit of its own wrong. The preliminary objection no.2 is also not tenable and not important one as the opposite parties no.2 and 3 have been wrongly arrayed as party.
9. In the light of our above observation and findings, complaint filed by complainant is partly allowed and the impugned demand in the bill dated 23.2.20015 amounting to Rs.57190/- is held illegal, null and void. The opposite parties no.1 and 4 are restrained to recover the aforesaid amount from the complainant. If the complainant has deposited any amount against this demand be refunded to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of order failing which opposite parties shall pay the refundable amount alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the expiry of 30 days till actually paid.
10. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
AUG. 28, 2015 Member.
*YP*
