Complainant Jatinder 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 not to charge the amount of Rs.3,24,065/- and charge the amount of actual consumption recorded by the meter prior to the jumping of the defective meter and after the installation of the new electricity meter and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages for the harassment and mental agony caused to him by the opposite parties  alongwith Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has installed an electric connection in his house for domestic purpose bearing Account No.DA-54/1803 now GT-22/0006 and his sanctioned load is 12.09 KW. He has been paying the consumption bills regularly to the opposite parties.  Thus he is consumer of the opposite parties. Suddenly his meter started jumping and recording the consumption at the very high rate and when it came to his notice he vide letter dated 23.8.2013 informed the opposite party and they marked this letter to Mohinder Singh the then JE of opposite parties. His meter was kept under observation on 23.08.2013, 24.8.2013 and 25.08.2013 and the meter was found recording the high rate of consumption and it was removed. His signature were obtained on some printed and already written forms and papers without letting him to know the contents of the said forms by the opposite parties. His consent letter was obtained by the officials of the opposite parties to check the meter in the ME Lab in his absence. He has further pleaded that the opposite parties vide bill/memo dated 12.11.2014 have demanded Rs.3,24,065/- on the basis of some ME Lab report. No copy of the ME Lab has been supplied to him. The opposite parties have not referred the matter to Electrical Inspector as per the settled law, Sales Regulations and commercial circulars issued by PSPCL in this regard before raising the illegal and unlawful demand of Rs.3,24,065/- vide letter memo No.1029 dated 12.11.2014. The opposite parties could not raise the illegal and unlawful demand of Rs.3,24,065/- till the report from Electrical Inspector regarding condition of the meter.  The demand of the opposite parties of the illegal and highhanded and exorbitant amount vide memo dated 12.11.2014 illegal, unlawful, ultravires, ineffective and violation of Sales Regulations of PSEB, Electricity Act. 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 in the present form; the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct and the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant submitted an application dated 23.8.2013 to the opposite parties, whereby he requested that his electric meter has been jumping and the units are being increased and further requested to check the same and do the needful. On receipt of the said application, the opposite parties deputed Er.Mohinder Singh, JE to visit the spot and report accordingly and spot was inspected by the said Er.Mohinder Singh JE, who submitted his report on the same day on 23.08.2013 that the spot is inspected and reported that reading of the meter was 96337, Make Saraf, Serial No.04814, Capacity 10-40, 03 Phase  and the said Mohinder Singh JE has checked the meter and submitted that gear of the meter gives voice and MCO may be issued and new meter may be installed. Thereafter, the opposite parties issued MCO No.077/60518 dated 23.08.2013, whereby the old meter was removed and new electric meter was installed in the presence of Jagbir Singh, who pretended himself to be the representative of the complainant on 23.08.2013 and old meter was packed in a card box in the presence of Jagbir Singh and he put his signature on the paper seal. Jagbir Singh the representative of the complainant gave his written consent letter on behalf of the complainant, whereby, he authorized the opposite parties to get the old meter checked from ME Lab Batala in his absence. Although the said Jagbir Singh representative of the complainant gave his written consent on behalf of the complainant, yet the opposite parties issued memo to the complainant to come present on 16.09.2014 at 10 AM in the ME Lab Batala so that the said old meter be checked the meter from ME Lab Batala on the basis of written consent letter of the representative of the complainant. It has further submitted that on 16.09.2014, the opposite parties vide Store Challan No.75 dated 16.09.2014 sent the said old meter to ME Lab Batala through Sh.Mohinder Singh JE and the said old meter was checked by the panel of members of ME Lab Batala  who furnished their details report on the same day, whereby, ME Lab Batala gave its report that all the three seals of the meter in dispute are found correct and the said meter in dispute shown the reading as 96406 units, but consumption data of the complainant shows the reading as 51790 and there is difference of 44616 units and advised the opposite parties that the account of the complainant may be overhauled and the amount of difference of electric units be charged from the complainant as per the norms and regulations of PSPCL. Thereafter, a Memo No.1029 dated 12.11.2014 for Rs.3,24,065 was issued to the complainant on the basis of report of ME Lab Batala, whereby, the opposite parties requested the complainant to deposit the amount as covered in the said memo. The said memo is legal, valid and binding on the rights of the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C20 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Er.Lalit Kumar AEE S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.OP1 and of Sh.Er.Mohinder Singh JE Ex.OP9, alongwith other document Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully examined the available evidence on the records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We find that the present dispute arose as a consequence of the impugned consumption Bill dated 12.11.2014 for Rs.3,24,065/- drawn upon the complainant’s Domestic Connection # DA -54/1803 with new # GT-22/0006 of 12.09 KW even at the face of the ‘defective’ Meter duly removed for replacement at the complainant’s written request Ex.C18/Ex.OP2 of 23.08.2013. The OP corporation has stated in its written reply that upon inspection on 23.08.2013, the complainant’s Electric Meter (with reading recorded at 96406) was giving humming sound and thus was removed on the same day (in the presence of Jagbir Singh, complainant’s representative) for checking in ME Lab, Batala. However, the consumption data reading as per records was: 51790 and as such a gap of 44616 persisted that was billed vide Ex.C19 memo # 1029 (12.11.2014) for Rs.3,24,065/- to be paid by the complainant who did pay an amount Rs.1,08,022/- vide Ex.C20 Receipt # 419 of 10.03.2015 in compliance to the Forum’s interim orders of 03.03.2015. The complainant has out rightly refuted that Jagbir Singh (as alleged to have represented him at the time of removal of the Meter) has ever been known to him. The learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that the OP Corporation cannot charge him for the ‘readings’ as per the admittedly defective Meter being removed for ‘faulty’ readings; since as per the governing Act the matter pertaining to ‘consumption’ in case of ‘defective’ Meters has to be resolved by the ‘Chief Electrical Inspectors’ office and not by the ME Lab etc. In support of his above contention the learned counsel has also cited the honorable High Court judgments in 2009(2) SA # 2086 of 2008 titled: PSEB & Anr vs. Firm New Era Printing Mills; & 2010(2) SA # 3291 of 2007 tilted Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., & Anr vs. Amarjit Singh Chadha; however, we find that that above two disputes have been adjudicated under the Electricity Act, 1910 (since repealed); whereas the present governing statute has been the Electricity Act, 2003 and that somehow does not hold a parallel provision. Under the circumstances, however, it stands proved that the OP Corporation has arbitrarily drawn the impugned Bill of 12.11.2014 for Rs.3,24,065/- and the complainant is legally entitled to have its consumption details along with the accounting procedure prescribed in such-like cases.

7.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the OP Corporation to get the impugned Bill/ Memo Ex.C19 of 12.11.2014 for Rs.3,24,065/-  investigated from one of its Senior Officer (preferably not below the rank of Executive Engineer) for correctness of factual consumption and also of the adopted accounting procedure and redraw the consumption charges afresh in detail and with requisite clarity within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the OP shall no longer be entitled to recover the impugned amount and shall also refund the amount deposited vide Ex.C20 to the complainant. Entire exercise shall be completed by the OP within 45 days from the receipt of copy of orders and meanwhile the recovery of the disputed amount shall remain stayed. The parties shall however bear their own expenses, here.

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

                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President   

Announced:                                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

December,24 2015                                                                     Member

*MK*