Complainant Harbans Bhushan has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.70,391/- wrongly raised on the basis of arrears of current year. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as mental harassment and torture alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that her mother namely Savitari Devi obtained a domestic electric connection bearing Account No.G43CF240177Y and electric meter No.484384 was installed in the category of D.S.Tariff. Her sanctioned load was 1.660 K.W. His mother died and he is paying the electricity consumption charges regularly and as such he has hired the services of opposite party and is consumer of the opposite party. The status of the electric meter remained O.K. On 10.06.2015 the opposite party no.1 issued electricity bill No.4477215F100827413 for Rs.80,820/- including Rs.61,066/- added as Arrears of current year which is illegal, baseless and wrong as nothing is due against him. Thereafter, on 17.10.2015 the opposite party issued electricity bill No.4477215J170839394 for Rs.80,420/- including Rs.66,032/- added as arrears of current years which is also illegal, wrong and baseless. He has next pleaded that on 15.02.2016 the opposite party issued electricity bill No.4477216B151018487 for Rs.85,390/- including Rs.70,391/- added as arrears of current year and the same is also illegal, wrong and baseless. He approached the opposite party and requested them to provide the details of above said electricity bills and rectify the same and withdraw their illegal, wrong and baseless demand of arrears of current year but they have refused to do so. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant is not the consumer of opposite parties as the connection is in the name of Savitari Devi; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as there is no privity of contract between the parties; the demand of Rs.61,066/- vide bill dated 10.6.2015 raised by the opposite parties is a legal and genuine demand as it is based on the actual consumption of the complainant; the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties; the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands as he has suppressed some material facts from this Hon’ble Court and the complainant has filed a false, frivolous complaint and having no merits, be dismissed with costs. On merits, it was submitted that earlier meter no.538187 was running in the house of the mother of the complainant was changed in routine in December 2014 vide M.C.O. No.100000586343 dated 8.12.2014 by the opposite party and new electric meter vide No.484384 was installed in the premises of the mother of the complainant. When the old electric meter was changed, the Meter reading was shown as 41111 on the old electric meter and during audit it is found that the complainant has paid the electricity charges only upto 30760 consumed units vide his bill dated 1.12.2014. So, the complainant has not paid the differences of 10351 consumed units which amounts to Rs.61,066/-. Then the said amount was added in the bill dated 10.6.2015 according to the rules, regulations and instructions of the PSPCL. So, it is very much clear that the arrears of Rs.61,066/- were on account of the consumed units for which the complainant is liable to pay. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It was admitted that a bill dated 17.10.2015 amounting to Rs.80,820/- including Rs.66,032/- as arrears including surcharge was issued to the complainant. It was also admitted that bill dated 15.02.2016 including surcharge was issued to the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Amardeep Singh Nagra S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit OP1 and of Sh.Vijay Kumar J.E. Ex.OP-2, alongwith other documents Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP-10 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have duly 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 (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant has been the beneficiary legal heir (Son) of the Holder Late Smt.Savitri Devi (W/o Late Sh.Durga Dass) of Electricity Connection # G43CF240177Y and did receive inflated/excessive amounted Bills w e f 10.06.2015 up to 16.02.2016 each exhibiting substantial arrears to the tune 60 to 80 grand for the current year and that prompted the present dispute.    

7.       At the very beginning, we find that the A/c Holder’s name as per the OP Service Provider’s records is: Sumitra Devi whereas it is addressed as: Savitri Devi (other particulars remaining unchanged) by both the contestants, in the present proceedings; and thus they are directed to remove the ‘anomaly’ henceforth, for removal of all ambiguity.    Next, comes the OP’s objection of the inter-se consumer relationship under the applicable statute in the light of the judgment passed by the honorable UK State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun in FA # 282 of 2010 titled: UK Power Corpn. Ltd. & Ors; while respectfully concurring with the therein transpired legal proposition, we are of the considered opinion that the matter dealt therewith pertained to Tube-well Power Supply whereas the present issue pertains to domestic power supply. In the case of Tube-well Power Supply, only the legal heirs inheriting the Tube-well Land (i.e., mutated in land revenue records) are eligible for ‘mutation’ in Service Provider’s Records i.e., eligible for stepping into the shoes of ‘predecessor’ consumer since there is ‘no-concept’ of ‘beneficiary’ there; whereas, in case of ‘domestic power supply’ not only the inheriting legal-heirs but all the family members & even the other occupiers of property (tenants including) shall fall under the statutory definition of ‘consumer’ being the ‘beneficiary-consumers’. Thus, the present complainant is very much a ‘consumer’ under the applicable ‘statute’ and the present complaint very much ‘admissible & maintainable’.

8.       Finally, coming to the prime criterion of dispute i.e., inflated/excessive consumption Bills, we find that the OP Corporation has itself stated/deposed vide its written reply/affidavit Ex.OP1 through its SDO that the complainant’s Electric Meter was changed/replaced in routine vide MCO (Meter Changing Orders) dated 08.12.2014 with reading as: 41111 whereas the complainant had paid only up to the reading of: 30760 vide Bill dated 01.12.2014; thus the inflated Bill represented simply the unpaid difference of: 10351 in the two readings amounting to Rs.61,066/- that the complainant was liable to pay. We are certainly not convinced with the OP’s above logic since the complainant could not have consumed 10351 unit of electricity in mere ‘7’ days measured against his record (history) of consumption. Thus, we find that the OP’s impugned Bill(s) have been ‘arbitrary’ in nature, need be set aside and these also being exhibits of ‘deficiency in service’ line them (OPs) up to an adverse award under the statute. Moreover, the demand as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the impugned Bills by the opposite party corporation has not been a matter of routine and not even proved to be in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per its Sales/Distribution Rules & Regulations etc. 

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party corporation to withdraw all the impugned Bills and instead draw upon the complainant only the simple consumption Bills besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the present orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the complaint till actual payment.

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)

July, 27 2016                                                          Member

*MK*