Complainant Manjit Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the necessary directions be issued to the titled opposite parties to withdraw their illegal demand raised in bill dated 9.6.2015 and to set aside/quash the bill in question and also directed the opposite parties to issue the bill after making proper consumption. He has also claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant including litigation expenses all in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that an electric connection bearing A/c No.3000187538 was installed in the name of Gurcharan Singh i.e. father of the complainant and after his death complainant was using the said connection being his beneficiary/legal heir and paying its bills regularly and nothing was outstanding against him and as such he is the consumer of the opposite parties. Complainant was using the electricity as per the sanctioned load by the opposite parties and the average bills of the complainant were coming to Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/-. It was pleaded that complainant was surprised when he received the bill dated 9.6.2015 for an amount of Rs.87,650/- for 694 units payable upto 24.6.2015 from the opposite parties. Complainant never used the electricity to this extent and before raising the above said illegal demand no notice was issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. Complainant never committed theft of energy at any point of time. Complainant approached the opposite parties for rectification of the bills but the opposite parties refused to do so and impugned bill issued by the opposite parties is illegal, null & void and against the rules and regulations of the opposite parties and beyond the actual consumption made by the complainant and as such the same is liable to be rectified. It was pleaded that opposite parties threatened the complainant if he will not make the payment of the above said illegal amount then his electric connection will be disconnected. It was further pleaded that due to illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties complainant has suffered mental as well as physical harassment, hence this complaint.

3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not the connection holder. The father of the complainant was the consumer of the opposite parties and as per the rules Electricity Supply terms & conditions the opposite parties are entitled to disconnect the connection after delivery of 15 days notice if the consumer is dead. Complainant has not come with clean hands and had not disclosed about the death of connection holder earlier only to avoid the payment of fee for change of name of connection holder. Complainant was estopped to challenge the impugned bill as he has not disclosed the real fact. The fact of the matter is that meter of the complainant was checked by SDO Sub Division City Gurdaspur vide LCR dated 11.12.2014 and he found that block of meter was over heated and was not working properly but supply of electricity was continue through meter which was delivered proper reading and meter was OK. But due to over-heat of block the meter was changed on 23.12.2014 vide MCO No.100000605613 dated 23.12.2014 and the same was removed and packed by J.E. Sh.Vijay Kumar in the presence of the complainant Manjit Sigh who put his signatures and gave his consent for checking the meter in his absence in the M.E. Lab and at the time of removal of the meter the reading was recorded as 19912 on 23.12.2014 and reading dated 27.11.2014 was recorded by the Meter Reader under spot billing system was 8871 and as such total units were found 11041 which were shown in the bill dated 20.2.2015 and by way of said bill the complainant was to deposit an amount of Rs.85020/- but the complainant neither challenged the bill nor deposited the amount of the bill. The sanctioned load of the connection was 8.120 K.W. On merits, It was admitted that connection bearing A/c No.3000187538 was installed in the house of Gurcharan Singh. It was stated that opposite parties were never informed about the death of Gurcharan Singh. It was denied that complainant was paying the bills regularly and nothing was outstanding against him. It was specifically denied that average bills of the complainant were coming to Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/-. It was also denied that bill dated 9.6.2015 amounting to Rs.87,650/- for 694 units was highly inflated. Complainant suppressed the real facts for non deposit of earlier bill amounting to Rs.73629/-. The actual bill of 694 units was only Rs.4617. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with cost.

4.Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.

5.Sh.Amardeep Singh S.D.O. of the opposite parties has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 along with other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence.

6. We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

7. 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 over the payment of the Electricity Bill Ex.C2 dated 24.06.2015 for Rs.87,650/- drawn upon the complainant against his Domestic Connection No.G-43CF-240514H continuing in the name of his since demised father. The OP corporation has stated in its written reply & also in its affidavit Ex.OP1 that the complainant’s Domestic Electric Meter needed replacement (due to Block Over-heat) & was thus removed on 23.12.2014 vide MCO # 100000605613 with its reading duly recorded at 19912 whereas the reading recorded on 27.11.2014 (by the Meter Reader) has been 8871 and thus the difference of 11041 units were charged/ billed at Rs.85020/- as consumption in the Bill of 20.02.2015 and that left unpaid has been reflected in the impugned Bill of 24.06.2015 as Rs.87650/-. However, the OP service providers have failed to explain as to how the consumption of 11041 units could be reached in 26 days and how the complainant was liable to pay the ‘unprecedented’ amount of the impugned Bill. There has been no attempt to place/produce any cogent logic so as to explain and justify the correctness and equity of the ‘demand’ of the impugned Bill and in its absence the complainant shall not be liable to pay the same. After all, the OP Corporation has been duty-bound to ensure and assure the ‘fool-proof’ functioning of its Electric Meters and the ‘correct & fair’ recording of Meter readings by its field staff. Any unusual/exceptional consumption need be inquired into and its causal occurrence need be fairly brought to light before ‘charging’ it from the consumer. The OP service providers have been deficient in service as alleged in the present complaint and that holds them liable to an adverse award under the Act. Thus, we set aside the impugned Bill dated 09.06.2014 for Rs.87650/- and direct the OP service providers to refund the excess amount, if any, deposited by the complainant who shall however pay his consumption in full (if not paid, earlier) as reflected by the replaced Electric Meter vides MCO (Meter Changing Orders) dated 23.12.2014, in compliance to the various consumption bills.

8. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled Opposite parties to withdraw the impugned Electricity Bill of 09.06.2015 for Rs.87650/- drawn upon the complainant and to further draw upon him consumption Bills only with requisite transparency besides to pay him Rs 3,000/- as compensation and Rs 2,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actually paid.

9. 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)

NOV. 17, 2015                                                            Member.

*YP*