Complainant Gurdial Singh through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to deduct Rs.18,020/- as sundry charges from the bill in dispute and to receive the actual consumption amount from him and also stayed from his disconnection and also from the recovery of bill amount under the grab of disconnection during the pendency of the complaint. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that Sh.Dalip Singh his father had got installed an electric connection at his house bearing account No.G 35 NF 310242L. His father had expired and after his death he being his son/legal heir is residing in his house, using this electricity connection, paying its bills regularly, nothing is outstanding against him and as such he being beneficiary is consumer of the opposite parties. His sanctioned and existing load is 2.24 KW. Status of meter is also “O”. He has further pleaded that the opposite parties have issued a bill dated 6.04.2015 to him amounting to Rs.20,320/-in which the total meter reading has been shown as 369 units and an amount of Rs.18,020/- has been added as Sundry Charges. No reasons have been mentioned in the bill that on what account this huge amount has been slapped. On receipt of the illegal bill in question he approached to the opposite party no.1 and requested them to rectify the bill but the opposite party refused to admit his claim and threatening to disconnect the electricity supply in the event of non payment of the impugned demand. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties he has suffered great mental agony as well as physical harassment from the hands of the opposite parties. No any kind of checking has ever been made by the opposite parties, nor the complainant ever committed any kind of theft of electricity energy. No notice before including such like huge amount in the bill was served by the opposite parties to him. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply through the counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has not been charged anything else than consumption charges and hence the present complaint deserves dismissal on this score alone and the complaint filed by the complainant is vexatious one and deserves to be dismissed with costs. On merits, it was submitted that in the month of 8/2014, the meter of the complainant was changed from mechanical meter to electronic meter. The replaced meter was sent to ME-II and as per the record of ME-II, the reading of the new replaced meter was 2170 but at the time its record was sent to computer, inadvertently its initial reading was feed as 3557 instead of 2170, hence bill for (3557-2170) 1387 units was recoverable from complainant which worked out as under:-
SOP = 8716
ED = 1131
Total = 9847
Regarding the bill for the month of 10/2014, it is submitted that new reading after 3557 was 4752 and hence complainant was liable to be charged for (4752-3557) 1195 units, but inadvertently computer wrongly prepared bill for 322 units i.e. SOP 1661 & ED 216 total 1877 hence complainant was to be charged for (1195-322) additional 873 units of electricity and bill for the same was recoverable from complainant worked out as under:-
SOP = 5610
ED = 729
Total = 6339
Similarly regarding bill for the month of 12/2014 it is submitted that new reading of the complainant was 5273 and old reading was 4752 and hence bill for 521 units for required to be recovered from complainant, but computer charged in ledger only 327 units, hence (521-327) 194 units more bill was required to be recovered from complainant worked out as under:
SOP = 1191
ED = 154
Total = 1345
Thus from the total of A+B+C above it is clear that sum of Rs.17,531/- on account of consumption charges was recoverable from complainant. Since complainant failed to deposit the above said amount with opposite party and hence a surcharge of Rs.520/- was charged thereon and thus the total amount worked out as Rs.18,051/- (17,531+520). It has further submitted that complainant has not been charged on account of any theft of electricity but has been charged on the basis of actual consumption of electricity by the complainant. The demand raised by opposite party is legal and opposite party is performing its duty within the framework of law. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.
5. Sh.Rajesh Kumar S.D.O. of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.
6. Both the parties have produced/filed their respective affidavits and other related documents in evidence to support their pleadings/objections on record and the learned counsels for the litigants have duly put forth their respective arguments. We have carefully considered and perused all the available material while adjudicating the present complaint.
7. From the pleadings and evidence on record, we find that the complainant has challenged the bill dated 6.4.2015 for Rs.20,320/- in which an amount of Rs.18,020/- has been added as sundry charges without mentioning any reasons in the bill. On the other hand, opposite party has contended that the sundry charges are the consumption charges only. The meter of the complainant was replaced in the month of 8/2014 and thereafter wrong entry was inadvertently fed in the computer system which resulted in the issuance of wrong bills and as such the amount claimed is the actual consumption charges only.
8. From the entire above discussion we find that though the amount claimed by opposite party is the actual consumption charges but we find that there is clear cut admission on the part of the opposite party that they have not been sending bills correctly and due to one reason or the other wrong entries were fed in their computer system and wrong bill were generated there from for no fault on the part of the complainant. Hence we find that complainant deserves to be compensated for this type of negligence by way of compensation and hence we dispose off the present complaint by giving directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the complainant (for causing unnecessary harassment by way of sending wrong bills) within 30 days from the receipt of copy of order. However, the complainant is also directed to pay the impugned bill claimed by the opposite party being actual consumption charges only.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Pronounced: (Jagdeep Kaur)
October,08 2015 Member
MK
