Complainant Kanwarjit Singh through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to withdraw the impugned demand raised vide bill dated 24.09.2014 and to set aside/quash the bill in question and directed the opposite parties to issue bill after making proper consumption and also to withdraw their illegal threat to disconnect the electric connection. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that his Grand Father namely Aqwak Singh had got installed an electric connection at his house  bearing account No.3000219221 and has been paying the electricity charges to the opposite parties regularly without any default after the death of Aqwak Singh. He is hiring the services of the opposite parties and thus he is consumer of the opposite parties. His consumption was of 500 to 600 units per bill. He has further pleaded that the opposite parties have issued a bill dated 24.09.2014 to him amounting to Rs.1,25,860/- whereby the opposite parties have demanded the said impugned amount from him for 8 days i.e. 11.9.2014 to 19.9.2014  and consumption was shown to be 14787 units as old status of the meter is 18763 and that of new is 33550. The impugned bill is wholly illegal, null and void and is not binding upon him.  Actually, there are few equipments lying in the house which are playing with the electricity. His electric meter has been installed by the opposite party outside the house and is under the lock and key of the opposite parties. Thereafter, he has approached to the opposite party no.2 and requested them to withdraw the impugned bill, but the opposite party refused to admit his claim and threatening to disconnect the electricity supply in the event of non payment of the impugned demand. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties he has suffered great mental agony and he has suffered mental as well as physical harassment from the hands of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply through the counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as the Electric connection is in the name of Aqwak Singh and the complainant has never applied for the change of name to the opposite parties and concerned authorities. The Corporation is fully authorized to disconnect the supply under regulation No.11.6.3 (F) of Supply Code 2014. The demand of Rs.1,25,860/- vide bill dated 24.9.14 raised by the opposite parties is a legal and genuine demand as it is based on the actual consumption of the complainant; the complaint is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of the necessary party as the bills were issued through Spot billing System by C.S.S. Tech. Energy; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands as he has suppressed some material facts from this Hon'ble Forum., the complainant never follow the PSPCL complaint handling procedure under Regulation No.25 of Supply Code 2014 and the complainant has filed a false, frivolous complaint and having no merits, be dismissed with costs. On merits, it was admitted that an electric connection was installed in house of the complainant bearing Account No.3000219221 is running in the name of Aqwak Singh and sanctioned load is 5.450 KW. It was specifically denied that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. He had never applied to the opposite parties for transferring the said connection on his own name. The opposite parties are authorized to disconnect the supply under Regulation 11.6.3. (F) of Supply Code 2014.  It was also admitted that the opposite parties issued a bill dated 24.9.2014 amounting to Rs.1,25,860/- to the complainant regarding 14787 units and his meter is in the Pillar box. Actually, on 19.9.2014 the meter of the complainant was checked vide LCR No.1198 dated 19.9.2014 in the presence of the complainant but he refused to sign it by Sh.Kunal Kalra then S.D.O. P.S.P.C.L. City Gurdaspur & M.I. Sardari Lal alongwith their staff and it was found that the meter reading of the electric meter of the complainant was 33550 whereas in his earlier bill dated 19.9.2014, the meter reading was shown as 18763. His meter was found working properly. Sh.Kunal Kalra S.D.O. City Gurdaspur recommended to issue fresh bill on the basis of actual meter reading i.e. 33550 and also recommended for change of meter. Then a fresh bill dated 19.9.2014 amounting to Rs.1,25,860/- including arrears of Rs.16,290/- of previous year was issued to the complainant. The old electric meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.100000493072 dated 24.9.2014 which was properly wrapped and packed in a cardboard in the presence of the authorized agent of the complainant. The complainant has deposited only Rs.33,000/- since from July 2012 till date and he is chronic defaulter of PSPCL. It has been further submitted that the bills of the complainant were provided through the spot billing system by C.S.S. Tech. Energy which is a Private Undertaking and there is every possibility that the complainant had shown his consumption less than his actual consumption in connivance with the employees of spot billing, so the bill dated 19.9.2014 issued to the complainant was according to his actual consumption and is legal, valid and as per the instructions of the PSPCL. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.        

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 and of Sh.Mahavir Singh Ex.C2, alongwith other documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence.

5.       Sh.Amardeep Singh Nagra, S.D.O. of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-11 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the litigants, while adjudicating the present complaint. We observe that the complainant being the legal heir/grandson descendent of the original Holder Aqwak Singh (his grandfather) and thus being the beneficiary user of the Connection in question has rightfully filed the present complaint (as a consumer) under the Act. Further, the remedy (of filing of consumer complaint) as available under the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986 being an alternate additional remedy (by virtue of its section 3) can be validly and choice-fully availed in preference to that available under the regulation 25 of the Electricity Supply Code; hence the OP’s related objection is set aside being unfounded and untenable. Finally, coming to the complainant’s prime allegation of arbitrary billing, we find that the OP service providers have duly admitted the issuance of consumption Bill # 1000186292 dated 24.09.2014 for Rs.1,25,860/- for a consumption of 14787 units in 08 days and also the first Bill # 51800267485 dated 11.09.2014 for a consumption of 550 units in 73 days but have totally ignored to produce any cogent/rational reason explaining the ultra excessive consumption in such a short span of only 08 days. The counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments have stated at bar that  complainant has yet to pay the actual consumption charges to the tune of  Rs.16,288/- only to the OP and the remaining demand raised  in the impugned bill is totally wrong and not acceptable. The OP here have, somewhat hesitatingly alleged that the complainant in connivance with the staff of the Spot Billing private agency has somehow managed to record lesser (short) readings (as found out during Field Checking on 19.09.2014) and thus the detected short fall in the reading was charged/ billed next on 24.09.2014. Had that been so and true the complainant would have been served notice U/s 135 of the Electricity Act’ 2003 along with the criminal prosecution of all the offenders. The stolen goods (electricity for that matter) cannot be billed as such in the usual course of business at the face of the available provisions in law. We find the act of the OP service providers as arbitrary amounting to ‘unfair trade practice’ and ‘deficient in service’ and hence liable to an adverse award under the Act.       

7.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties to withdraw the impugned Bill dated 24.09.2014 for Rs.1,25,860/- and refund the related amount deposited (if any) to the complainant with deduction of Rs.16,288/-(being admitted liability of the complainant) within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation otherwise the entire awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actually paid.

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

                                                                               (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                    President.

Pronounced:                                                         (Jagdeep Kaur)

September 08, 2015                                                       Member.

*MK*