Complainant Harbhajan Singh Advocate, 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 quash/set aside bill dated 4.12.2015 for Rs.56,320/- and opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service, litigation expenses and for causing harassment and  other relief which he may be found entitled to.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is having electric connection bearing No.G44MF320025M at his residence bearing Meter No.910320 and has been paying its consumption bills regularly to the opposite parties, as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. He has further pleaded that he received the bill for the period from 12.2.2014 to 28.02.2014 for the consumption of 121 units and the bill was for an amount of Rs.656/- and he paid the bill and in this bill the status of meter was ‘O’ meaning thereby that the meter was all correct. He was surprised to receive a bill dated 4.12.2015 for the period from 13.04.2015 to 04.12.2015 for Rs.56,320/-. He never used the electricity for this amount and the bill is illegal. He requested the opposite parties to correct this bill and charge the bill as per the consumption, but they refused and was adamant that he should pay Rs.56,320/- as per bill. 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 present complaint is not maintainable because the bill under dispute has been issued for the energy consumed by the complainant. The bill is for 235 days and 838 units. The load of the consumer is 11.640 KWs. As per law when the load is more than 10 KWs, the reading of the consumption of energy is taken every month. The bill under dispute, although prepared on average consumption of energy as the meter was found defective, it is for 235 days and 8383 units. For load of 11.640 KWs and 235 days (13.04.2015 to 04.12.2015), it is not at all abnormal bill. On merits, it is submitted that the bill in dispute is based on average consumption for 235 days, which comes to 838 units. For load of 11.640 KWs, consumption of 838 units in 235 days is not at all abnormal. Therefore, there is no illegality in the bill under dispute.  Opposite parties further submitted that when the bill is prepared as per consumption of energy, there is no question of withdrawing the same. All other averments made in the complaint has 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.CW1, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Harmanpreet Singh Gill AEE Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-9 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 Harbhajan Singh has been a consumer of the opposite party Corporation (Service Providers) under the CP Act’ 1986, by virtue of being holder of the Electricity Domestic Connection # G44MF320025 with a Sanction Load of 11.640 KW, at his Family Residence. Upon being aggrieved at the receipt of one allegedly excessive Bill dated 04.12.2015 for Rs.56,320/- (Ex.C4) he preferred the present complaint alleging that he was liable to pay charges as per the actual consumption and not otherwise. To support his contention, the complainant did produce his previous Bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and Ex.C5 to Ex.C8 and that indeed were of much lesser amounts but at the same time these pertain to periods of one/two months only; whereas the Bill Ex.C4 for Rs.56,320/- pertains to a period of almost 08 months.

7.       However, the opposite party corporation (service providers) have duly explained that the for a sanction load of 11.640 KW the impugned Bill has been seemingly nothing ‘unusual’ for a period of 235 days  and moreover the same was drawn in accordance with the Electricity Sales Rules in the absence of Electricity Meter during the period of the ‘defective’ Meter. The OP service providers have also produced the ‘approved’ calculation formula for ‘consumed’ units as:

‘Sanctioned Load (11.640 KW) X days/ month (=30 days) X hours/ day (=08 hrs)    X Factor (30%) = 838.08 X 235 days/ 30 = 6565 units (consumed/ charged etc)’.

Somehow, we find the explanation as made out by the opposite service providers as satisfactory and legally valid. The demand as put forth upon the complainant for payment of these amounts by the opposite party corporation has been a matter of routine and they have been within their legal rights to demand and recover the legally accrued amounts as per the Sales & Distribution of Electricity Rules & Regulations etc. 

8.       In the light of the all above, we do not find any statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs. 

9.        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)

May,17 2016                                                                    Member

*MK*