Complainant Gurpreet Singh has filed the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, the C.P. Act.) has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties being the different offices/authorities of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. At Patiala, Gurdaspur, Batala and at Model Town, Batala to rectify the impugned bills and instead receive the actual consumption amount from him besides to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation for having caused mental agony, physical torture and financial loss alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the electric connection bearing Account No.G 25MM 280908 L was installed in the name of his father Mukhtar Singh who has been residing in Canada since long and in his absence the complainant being the beneficiary has been paying all the consumption bills regularly and in time. However, on 7.6.2013 he received the impugned bill of Rs.7280/- that was in excess of the regularly amounts of Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per month. The complainant has further stated that the opposite party J.E.Gursharan Singh came to his residence and directed him to deposit Rs.17,000/- as consumption bill for the last three months that he deposited on 17.9.2013 under protest. As no enough, he again received another bill on 6.10.2013 for Rs.4420/- that was against an exaggerated consumption unit. Further he received another bill of Rs.25,320/- on 4.8.2014 and thus prompted the present complain with the requisite relief as prayed herein above.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply denying and rebutting the allegations made in the complaint but without any evidentiary substance. Lastly it has been pleaded that the impugned bills represented the consumption of the complainant and thus no cause of action has ever accrued in his favour to file the present complaint that deserved dismissal with costs.

4.     Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.  

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Manjit Singh S.D.O. PSPCL Ex.OP-1 and Consumption data Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       We have carefully examined the produced documents to analyze the purpose and potential of each of these and discuss here the ones that effect and determine the present adjudicatory. We find that he complainant has rightly alleged notable inconsistency in the various Consumption Bills as raised by the OP service providers and that stands duly admitted vide their own produced consumption-chart Ex.OP2. Moreover, there has been no inquiry/investigation as to the cause of the apparent inconsistency. The complainant has also imputed a serious charge of intentional harassment at the instance of one OP employee (to settle personal scores/vendetta) and the same has neither been denied nor rebutted by the OP throughout the proceedings of the present complaint and as such an adverse inference may transpire. Moreover, the complainant has also reported ‘fast running’ of he Meter vides Ex.C10 duly marked to employee Inderjit Singh with no follow up/furtherance reported on the records. Also, the connected/sanctioned Load has been 0.84 KW only and the reported consumption as shown against different date-periods especially the one at: 6/14 is apparently on the higher side. No inquiry/investigations appear to have been conducted to thread bare the facts and know the exact position/status etc.Thus, we find that somehow the demands by the OP have not been correctly raised and certainly desire an overhauling/moderation and that also establishes ‘deficiency in service’ on their part that did put the complainant to inconvenience, hardship resulting into harassment.

8.        In the light of the all above and the payment of 50% having duly made in compliance to the Forum’s orders dated 07.08.2014, we set aside the balance outstanding of the so arbitrarily raised demand up to August’2014 and further direct the OP service providers to raise the next consumption Bills ensuring impartiality and correctness (in an appropriate manner) that the complainant shall be liable to pay regularly, being the pure consumption charges. We are not inclined to award any distinct compensation to the complainant for the partly proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP service providers. However, the OP service providers are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the present complaint.

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

      (Naveen Puri)

                                                                          President   

Announced:                       (G.B.S.Bhullar)                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

January ,21 2015                          Member                               Member    

*MK*