Complainant Harpreet Singh 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 refund Rs.3030/- vide bill dated 13.10.2016 and Rs.2080/- vide bill dated 27.01.2017 and set aside the bills being illegal, null and void and opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- for mental and physical harassment and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to him.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is practicing Lawyer and availed the services of the opposite parties for the installation of electric meter  bearing Account No.3000335014 in his Chamber No.119  in the Boxes, which were fixed outside the Lawyer’s Chambers building. He received the first bill amounting to Rs.1500/- on 26.1.2015 which was for the period of five months i.e. from 28.4.2014 to 26.01.2015. Thereafter, he received bills regularly after every two months amounting to Rs.600/- each on average basis as per the load of the connection, which he was paying regularly. He has next pleaded that on 24.9.2016, he received a bill of Rs.4280/- and thereafter on 4.10.2016 he moved an application for correction of this bill to opposite party no.3. Spot inspection of the meter was conducted on 4.10.2016 by the officials from the office of opposite parties and the meter reading was found 622 units as per the endorsement made by the officials of the opposite parties on the application moved by him. Thereafter on 13.10.2016, opposite parties issued a new bill amounting to Rs.3030/- which was for consumption of 436 days i.e. from 02.08.2015 to 12.10.2016. Being unsatisfied with this exorbitant bill, he again met the opposite party No.3 and enquired the reason that why they have illegally send the impugned bill amounting to Rs.3030/- for the consumption of 436 days, on which, the opposite party no.3 said that he has to pay this bill and further assured that the problem in the Computer system which generates the bill has been rectified and the excess amount paid by  the complainant would be adjusted in subsequent bills and on assurance of the opposite party no.3, he paid the bill of Rs.3030/- on 25.10.2016. He again received the next bill on 28.11.2016 for Rs.600/- which was also paid by him and again on 27.1.2017, he again received an exorbitant bill amounting to Rs.2080/- for the correction of which he again moved an application to the opposite partyno.3. The opposite party no.3 kept on lingering the matter and finally refused to correct bill on the pretext that this is a Computer generated bill. He has asked the opposite parties to withdraw the bills dated 13.10.2016 for Rs.3030/- and bill dated 27.1.2017 for Rs.2080/- as the same are illegal and have not been prepared as per the actual consumption but they refused to do so. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.         Notice issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply  submitting therein that the defective meter of the complainant has been changed after its checking and after adjustment an amount of Rs.1270/- was outstanding against the complainant, which the complainant is liable to pay. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with cost.

4.       Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-W1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed the evidence.

5.     On the other hand, ld.counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Prithpal Singh S.D.O. Sub Division Sub Urban PSPCLtd. Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.   

6.       We have heard the arguments put forth by both the counsels. On perusing the file minutely, it has transpired that complainant being a practicing lawyer, is having his office at Chamber No.119, Block-A, District Court Complex, Gurdaspur and has availed the services of opposite parties and such he is consumer of opposite parties. The dispute arose when complainant received a bill dated 24.9.2016 for Rs.4280/- as earlier he was receiving bill for Rs.600/- on average basis. The same is Ex.C-2. On this bill the Meter Status is shown as “D”. Thereafter complainant moved an application on 4.10.2016 for correction of bill and “D” code. This fact is proved by Ex.C6. This application is received and signed by Er.J.E. Raj Kumar on 4.10.2016 and a report regarding checking of the meter is given on the same application on 4.10.2016. The meter reading was shown as “642” and it was reported that meter is working. Again a bill amounting to Rs.3030/- dated 13.10.2016 for 436 days was issued to complainant and the same is Ex.C-4. And the same was paid by complainant on 25.10.2016 is proved vide Ex.C-4. Again a bill dated 27.1.2017 amounting to Rs.2080/- was received by complainant and the same is Ex.C1. The complainant has pleaded that he moved an application for correction of this bill but no document is produced on the file to prove this.

7.      On the other hand opposite parties have filed written reply that is not signed by PSPCL authorities and only signed by the counsel for opposite parties. An affidavit is filed by opposite parties and that is Ex.OP-1. In this document S.D.O. Prithpal Singh of Sub Division, Sub Urban has admitted that they have changed the defective meter of the complainant after checking the same and after adjustment Rs.1270/- is outstanding against the complainant which he is bound to pay and moreover in their written reply also the opposite parties have admitted in para 6 that defective meter has been replaced. No other evidence is placed on the file to rebut the allegations of complainant.

8.     From above all discussion, it is proved that the meter installed by the opposite parties was defective and that’s why the bills were wrongly generated for higher amount. Neither complainant, nor opposite parties have placed any document to prove the outstanding amount of Rs.1270/- as mentioned in the written reply by opposite parties in para no.6. Moreover the complainant has prayed for refund of the bill amounting to Rs.3030/- dated 13.10.2016 and the bill dated 27.1.2017 for Rs.2080/- be quashed alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. On perusing the file, it is proved vide Ex.C-4 that complainant had paid the disputed bill amount without any protest, so, accordingly no relief can be granted for that. Opposite parties have admitted in their written reply that defective meter was changed after spot inspection of 4.10.2016 and even after that on 27.1.2017 this bill of Rs.2080/- was issued to complainant in which meter status is shown as “D” and bill is “Average type”. It proves that the meter was still defective and opposite parties were sending bill on average basis, which proves the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

9.      In view of above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to quash the bill dated 27.1.2017 for Rs.2080/- and further opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for harassment of complainant and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. Entire compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.

10.        Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

ANNOUNCED:                  (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

 March 18, 2019.                   Member                         Presiding Member

 MK