Complainant Manoj Kumar 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 impugned demand raised vide notice bearing memo no.350 dated 29.2.2016 and to set aside/quash the same. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony alongwith litigation expenses, in the  interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he got installed an electric connection in his house bearing Account No.3000192677 in his name and his connected load is 14.660 K.W. He is using the electricity supply and is continuously paying the electricity charges to the opposite parties without any default. He has further pleaded that in the month of August 2015, some officials of the opposite parties have visited his house and at that point of time, he was not at his home and his nephew namely Rahul was present in the home. The said officials had asked to said Rahul that under the scheme of the PSPCL they are going to remove the old electric meter for the sole purpose to install new Digital electricity meter and they further allured that there requires signature of any of the representative and Rahul signed some papers which were produced by them before him. Now the opposite parties have issued a demand notice bearing memo no.350 dated 29.2.2016 to him for Rs.93,008/- and alleged that on 9.2.2016 in the presence of Enforcement staff, his meter was checked at M.E.Lab Gurdaspur and it was allegedly found that two phase of the old meter was dead. Infact the alleged demand of Rs.93,008/- is totally illegal, null and void and he is not bound to pay the same. Thereafter, he has approached to the opposite party no.3 and requested them to withdraw the impugned demand raised in the impugned bill but they have refused to admit his claim.  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 demand of Rs.93,008/- vide notice memo no.350 dated 29.02.2016  issued by the opposite parties is a legal and genuine demand as it is based on the overhauling of the account of the complainant and the complainant has filed a false, frivolous complaint and having no merits, be dismissed with costs. On merits, it was submitted that in August 2015, the old electric meter of the complainant was changed by the opposite parties vide MCO No.100001078314 dated 23.7.2015 and a new electric meter was installed there. The old electric meter of the complainant was changed in the presence of Mr.Rahul the authorized agent of the complainant and was properly wrapped and packed in a Cardboard box by the J.E. Raj Kumar. The authorized agent of the complainant also signed on the wrapped and packed cardboard box and also on the consent letter to open the old electric meter of the complainant in M.E.Lab. even in his absence after reading it carefully. The M.E.Lab vide its report dated 9.2.2106 after putting the Electric meter on the test found that the Red and Yellow (R & Y) Phase of the electric meter of the complainant were found dead and the electric meter was running only on blue (B) Phase and proceed according to the instructions of the PSPCL. Then a notice vide Memo No.350 dated 29.2.2016 amounting to Rs.93,008/- was issued to the complainant after overhauling the account of the complainant for the last six months according to the instructions of the Corporation. So, the complainant is bound to pay that amount. Hence, there is not any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. sts.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C15 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Harmanpreet Singh Gill S.D.O. PSPCL OP1, of Sh.Rajinder Sharma S.D.O. M.E.Lab Ex.OP-2 and of Sh.Raj Kumar J.E. Ex.OP-3 alongwith other documents Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP-8 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 (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant has been the electric connection Holder with A/c # 3000192677 with the opposite parties and thus a consumer under the applicable statute. However, the complainant had received Memo Bill # 350 dated 29.02.2016 for Rs.93,008/- and has thus preferred the present complaint before the forum. The opposite party corporation in its reply and the supporting affidavit Ex.OP1 has pleaded that the complainant’s electric Meter had to be changed being defective and thus his A/c was overhauled and thus prompted the impugned Bill. Somehow, the OP Corporation could not pin-point any fault of the complainant in turning the Meter ‘faulty’ and/or how such a fatty amount could have become outstanding against him and for which period the outstanding ‘arrears’ pertain to etc. Moreover, no notice was ever served upon the complainant for meter checking and instead ‘signatures’ of minor ‘nephew’ were procured on the MCO request letter. Further, the electric Meter was not checked in the presence of the complainant and to sum it up the OP Corporation has failed to prove the necessity and in order follow-up of the Meter ‘checking and changing’ prescribed procedure and that lines them up for an adverse statutory award. Thus, we find that the OP’s inability to explain the ‘checking and changing’ of Electric Meter has been ‘arbitrary’ in nature and calls for setting the same aside and it also exhibits ‘deficiency in service’ and that lines them (OPs) up to an adverse award under the statute. Moreover, the demand as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the impugned Bills by the opposite party corporation has not been a matter of routine and not even proved to be in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per its Sales/Distribution Rules & Regulations etc. 

7.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party corporation to withdraw the impugned demand raised in the Memo no.350 dated 29-2-2016 and instead draw upon the complainant only the simple consumption Bills for the period not covered under the impugned bills besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the present orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the complaint till actual payment. The complainant shall promptly deposit the other pending consumption Bills, if any, upon receipt of the same as per the rules of the OP Corporation. 

8.        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)

JULY, 28 2016                                                       Member

*MK*