Complainant Joginder 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 withdraw the notice/memo in question and not to receive any money from him.  Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he has installed an Atta Chakki at Village Ghuman Kalan. He has got installed electric connection bearing No.G 35 GP 160199P in his name and using this electricity connection, paying its bills etc. regularly, without any default and nothing is outstanding against him. He himself employed in this Atta Chakki and running the same exclusively for earning his livelihood and for his family members. He has not hired service of any servant etc. He has next pleaded that to his utter surprise, the opposite parties issued notice/memo No.2005 dated 6.6.2017 in which demand of Rs.21,248/- has been raised and it has been threatened that in case amount of Rs.21,248/- is not paid within 7 days, his connection would be disconnected. In the above said memo/notice it has been pointed out by the opposite parties that this amount pertains to difference of 744 units on account of difference in reading in the old meter. This fact is totally wrong and not admitted.  Neither the old meter was packed in a card board box and even no notice was issued to him before checking the meter in ME Lab. Even his signatures were never obtained at the time of removing the old meter, nor its last reading was intimated to him. As such in case any alleged checking report is produced by the opposite parties before this Hon'ble Commission the same is also illegal, null and void and the same is not binding on him. On receiving the above mentioned memo/notice he approached the opposite party no.1 and requested him to withdraw the same but they refused to take any  action in this matter. Thus, there is clear cut 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 taking the preliminary objections that   the complainant has  not charged anything else than consumption charges and hence present complaint deserves dismissal on this Score alone. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant has got electricity connection for his Atta Chakki bearing No.G35GP160199P. The meter of the complainant was defective and hence it was changed vide MCO No.126 dated 02.08.2016 vide ME2 page no.62 item no.15585. The final reading of the changed meter was 5831 whereas the last billing as per the ledger was upto 1795. During the month of August, 2016 the bill issued to the complainant was based on average i.e. 744 units whereas the complainant was required to be charged for 4036 units (5831-1795=4036) and hence complainant was charged for balance units of electricity i.e. 4036-744=3292 units for which a sum of Rs.21,248/- was worked put which is recoverable from complainant. Thereafter complainant has been issued memo no.2005 dated 06.06.2017 whereby he was asked to deposit abovesaid amount of Rs.21,248/- on account of energy/consumption charges.  It was next submitted that the complainant has been rightly charged on account of difference of units.  All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.   

4.       Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.

5.       Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Khazan Singh, S.D.O. Naushehra Majja Singh Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

6.       Written arguments have not been filed by both the parties.

7.        We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

8.       Although, it is an industrial connection of Atta Chakki but as stated by the complainant that it is being used for earning livelihood by the complainant, so as per CPA,-2019 7 (ii) (a) the present complaint is taken up before this Commission for adjudication.      

9.       As detailed above the complainant has filed the present complaint to challenge notice issued by the opposite parties vide memo No.2005 dated 06.06.2017 demanding to Rs.21,248/- for the Atta Chakki connection of the complainant bearing A/c No.G-35GP-160199P. It was alleged by the complainant that the notice which was issued on the basis of difference of units of old removed defective meter from his premises was illegal, null & void as neither the old meter was packed in a cardboard box nor checked in the M.E.Lab. in his presence. Complainant further pleaded that he has approached the opposite party No.1 to withdraw the above notice but they refused.

10.     Opposite parties in their written reply stated that the meter of the said connection of the complainant was changed as it was defective and get it checked from M.E.Lab. It was further pleaded that there was a difference of reading as the meter has run for 4036 units but previously the bills were issued upto 1795 units. So the said notice No.2005 dated 06.062017 was issued to the complainant to charge the difference of units which is legal and genuine.

11.     From the above detail of the case opposite parties have not placed on record; i) copy of consent of the complainant for checking in M.E. Lab., ii) checking report of M.E.Lab., iii) regulation of the department under which the reading of the defective meter has been taken as correct.

12.     From the above we are of the considered opinion that in view of the definite procedure laid down in the Electricity Supply Code, 2014 under regulation 21.5.2 to overhaul the account of the defective meter, so we find that the notice issued on the basis of the reading of the defective meter is not justified.

13.     As per aforesaid discussion the present complaint is partly allowed and the notice issued vide memo No.2005 dated 06.06.2017 is hereby set aside. However, opposite party No.1 is at liberty to overhaul the account of the complainant for the period, the meter remained defective as per regulation No.21.5.2 of Electricity Supply Code, 2014. No order as to costs.      

14.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

15.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                          

      (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                President  

Announced:                                               (B.S.Matharu)

Aug. 01, 2023                                                    Member

YP.