Complainant Joga 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 set aside the illegal bill and amount of Rs.9650/- be refunded to him. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for the physical harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is having meter bearing Account No.G49DF731251A in his new shop and paying the electricity bills to the opposite parties regularly. So he is consumer of the opposite party. This shop is exclusively for earning for himself and his family members and has no other source of income except this shop. Opposite parties replaced the old meter by installing new Digital Electricity Meter and the said meter is installed near his shop in the month of December 21015. Firstly, the opposite party issued him bill amounting to Rs.9650/- payable by 18.4.2016 in cash and the reading for this bill was taken with the N code of the previous old meter and the bill was issued to him on average basis and he deposited the same on 18.04.2016. Thereafter the opposite parties issued him a bill amounting to Rs.21,450/- and reading for the said bill was taken from the new meter and included the consumption of previous bill of Rs.9650/- illegally. It means that the opposite parties has taken the reading of the new meter and issued bill of Rs.21,450/-  by adding the amount of Rs.9650/- of the previous bill which has already been deposited by him. The opposite party has sent the illegal bill by adding Rs.9650/- to him of Rs.21,450/- whereas he should have been issued bill only for Rs.11,800/- and as such the opposite party has charged illegally Rs.9650/- from him. The opposite parties has sent the illegal bill of Rs.21,450/- which is liable to be set aside and Rs.9650/- should have been refunded to him. 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 in the present form; the complainant has got no locus standi to file the complaint and the complainant has filed a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint by concealing the true facts from this Hon’ble Forum. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party issued bill for Rs.21,450/- for 2692 units for the period from 18.4.2016 to 1.6.2016. It was denied that the opposite party has sent the illegal bill by adding Rs.9650/- to him of Rs.21,450/-. The amount of Rs.9650/- was on average basis and the complainant had paid the said amount and the bill  for Rs.21,450/- is on the basis of meter reading of new meter in which consumption as shown as 2691 units and Rs.9650/- as alleged by the complainant. There is no illegality in the bill in dispute. 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.C1, alongwith other document Ex.C2 to Ex.C13and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jit Singh S.D.O. PSPCLtd Ex.OP1 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 (in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant has been admittedly the NRS consumer of the opposite party # 03 service provider/ corporation being the valid holder of 4.40 KW NRS Connection A/c # G49DF731251A and has filed the instant complaint for statutory redressal of his grievance caused on account of receipt of the first impugned consumption Bill Ex.C13 up to 30.03.2016 payable by 18.04.2016 for Rs.9,650/- drawn on average basis by the opposite party Corporation and duly paid in full on due date vide valid Receipt Ex.C12. However, the second impugned Bill Ex.C10 up to 01.06.2016 for Rs.21,450/- payable by 16.06.2016 was issued that is alleged to include (i.e., re-added with) the already paid amount of Rs.9,650/- of the previous Bill. The complainant has produced his evidentiary documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C13 and that somehow do not satisfactorily and sufficiently prove the complaint-raised allegations. Upon approach, the OP service providers instead of explaining the impugned amounts of the Bills did adopt coercive means and threats of disconnection of his power supply and also to further carry over the disputed amount to next Bills and that prompted the present complaint.

7.       However, the opposite party corporation (service providers) have refuted all the allegations vide its written statement and has further deposed (vide affidavit Ex.OP-1) of the consumer’s liability to pay the impugned consumption Bill Ex.C10 since it represented the actual consumption charges as per the new Meter readings replaced on 26.02.2016. The OP Corporation has somewhat attempted to satisfactorily support its rebutting assertions through its lone affidavit but have not been fully successful in the absence of non-production of full related records. We do also somewhat find the instant explanation as made out by the opposite party service providers/ corporation to be somewhat partially satisfactory but legally valid.

8.       Upon close scrutiny, we find that the first impugned Bill covered the consumption assessed up to 30.03.2013 on average basis whereas the second following Bill pertained to the consumption as recorded by the new Meter but after 30.03.2016 onwards up to 01.06.2016 and it did never included the paid amount of Rs.9,650/- of the first impugned Bill as alleged in the instant complaint. However, we are of considered opinion that the OP service providers did not attempt to explain the de-facto true position to the complainant. Moreover, the demands as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the consumption charges by the opposite party corporation has been a matter of routine and also in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per the Sales & Distribution of Electricity Rules & Regulations and thus we are not inclined to interfere in the matter pertaining to the payment of consumption Bills though he is entitled to have his requisite queries duly clarified at the hands of the OP service providers. 

9.       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 opposite party # 3 (the SDO) to review both the impugned consumption Bills and satisfy himself to its authenticity & concurrence with the OP’s Sales and Supply Rules and Regulations and clarify its formulation and also the calculations to the present complainant who shall be entitled to seek replies to his valid queries and also liable to pay his consumption charges as legally demanded by the OP Corporation as per its Sales & Supply Rules and Regulations etc within 15 days of the finalization of the same. The litigating parties shall however bear their own expenses, here.

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)

March,15 2017                                                                 Member

*MK*