Complainant M/s.Zimidara Rice Mills, through its Prop. Malkit 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 rectify the bill in dispute and to receive the actual consumption charges from him and not to recover the  amount illegally slapped upon him. Opposite parties be further directed to restrain from disconnection his electric connection till the final decision of the complaint. Opposite parties be next directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has installed Mini Rice Shelling Machine by way of self employment. He himself employed in this Mini Rice Sheller and running the same exclusively for  earning his livelihood and  his family members. He has got installed electric connection bearing No.G 47 MS 740016M in his name. He is using this connection, paying its bills etc. regularly, without any default and nothing is outstanding against him. To his utter surprise, the opposite parties issued bill dated 19.02.2018 for Rs.6,84,890/- in which an amount of Rs.4,01,683/- has been added as Sundry Charges, without mentioning any reason that how this huge amount has been slapped on him. On receiving this bill, he approached to the opposite party no.1 and requested him to rectify the same and to receive the actual consumption charges but he refused to take any action into the matter.  In the abovesaid memo/notice it has been alleged 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. 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 complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant firm is a big industry having ms category connection vide A/c No.MS-74/16 having sanctioned load of 97.70 KW and is a Rice Sheller and the Rice product is being sold for commercial purpose and as such the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone; due to error or mistake the computer was not issuing proper Bills as per the advise submitted by the office of SDO PSPCL Kahnuwan and was issuing Bills on ‘I’ code due to error for the period w.e.f. 10/2016 to 10/2017 and when this error was detected and the computer cell-Amritsar was informed and was asked to remove this error in billing vide letter memo no.976 dated 3.10.2017 thus when this error or mistake was removed and demand for the actual  difference of billing’s for said period was being raised from the consumer i.e. actual energy electricity consumption bills utilized or availed by the consumer but after giving prior notice are being claimed from the consumer. Thus as such the demand of Rs.7,87,264/- does not amounts to any deficiency in service and this complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone and the act and conduct of the officials of the opposite party are protected under Indian Electricity Act and various other related provisions of Act and Law. On merits, the complainant firm  is now being charged for actual electricity dues for period w.e.f. 10.2016 to 10.2017 for this period as the consumer was billed wrongly by the computer on “I” code bills due to error was issued bills based on Average, sometimes bills on MMC basis sometimes minus bills were raised and ever refund also was given thus was billed erratically by computer and was not billed correctly as per Data submitted and wrong demand’s were being raised were during the period 10/16 to 10/17 from consumer,  thus actual electricity dues were not recovered from the firm. Thus subsequently when this mistake or error was rectified, the actual difference in bills for the said period and demand was raised after giving prior notice and the consumer was fully appraised of the recovery vide memo no.58 dated 11.1.2018 w.e.f. 10/16 to 10/17 for Rs.4 lacs and notice vide memo no.738 dated 1.3.2018 for Rs.7,87,264/- i.e. for period 10/16 to 4/2017 in all thus Rs.7,87,264/- i.e. energy bills for actual electricity availed by the consumer.  The consumer is not clearing all dues not ever clearing current bills and actual energy bills at present Rs.12,24,286/- is recoverable till 2/2018 and the consumer is fully aware of the same and is intentionally not clearing all the dues and even not clearing current bills. Thus the complaint is uncalled and not maintainable as the recovery is for actual consumption bills.  While denying and controverting other allegations leveled by the complainant, opposite parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.       Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Malkiat Singh Prop Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.A.S.Nagra S.D.O. P.S.P.C.Ltd. Sub Division Kahnuwan Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 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 (in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We observe that the complainant (a sole-proprietorship firm) engaged in rice-shelling business as an SSI unit for self employment and earning of livelihood and had been quite a long time consumer of the opposite party service providers/corporation being the valid beneficiary of the SSI Electric Connection # G-47MS740016M. However, the complainant was put to a shocking grievance on 19.02.2018 upon receipt of an excessive amounted consumption Bill for Rs.6,84,890/- that included Rs.4,01,683/- as sundry charges without assigning any logical reason towards the same even upon repeated asking. Somehow, the complainant could, in time, apprehend coercive recovery (including disconnection etc) at the hands of OP Corp. and thus prompted the present complaint. 

7.       The complainant firm has satisfactorily proved its allegation contented complaint vides its proprietor’s deposition (affidavit Ex.C1) and other evidentiary documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6. The OP service providers have somehow admitted the principal facts and have deposed its other contentions (vide Affidavit Ex.OP1) and have also produced evidence (Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP8) in support of their bald rebuttals that however fail to prove/ establish the main pleading of arrears on account of defective Electric Meter and admitted ‘flaw’ i.e., mistake by its Computer.

8.       We are certainly not convinced as to how the detected ‘flaw’ was allowed to continue/ cause delay and was not restored in spite of having its notice/ knowledge till it arbitrarily affected the requisitioned amount of sundry charges. It not only depicts ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the OP service providers but also indicates presence of ‘malafide’ in the dealings at the end of their officials who have been unnecessarily deferring the requisite ‘restoration’ of electric supply to be in the prescribed order as per its own prescribed rules so as to run the Sheller Unit during the Harvesting of Paddy Season peak from October to December, every year. 

9.       We are of the considered opinion that the opposite party service providers/ corporation have acted in an arbitrary and unauthorized illegal manner in the present case and thus the present complainant firm shall not be liable to pay the impugned Bill having Sundry Charges as its substantial constituent. Somehow, we also find that the present impugned demands as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the levied sundry charges by the opposite party corporation has not been a matter of routine and also not in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per their own Sales & Distribution of Electricity Rules and Regulations and the details were neither put forth in the impugned demand nor any pre-notice was served, as requisite. It shall however be the discretional prerogative of the OP Corporation to recover the financial aspects of the statutory award from its delinquent employees as misconduct penalty.

10.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the opposite party # 1 (the SDO) to recall and set-aside the impugned Sundry Charges and instead raise an appropriately detailed demand of admitted consumption of Rs.2,83,207/- upon the complainant firm in conformity with the applicable ‘Sales & Distribution Regulations’ and to appropriate the all the deposited amounts besides to pay him (prop. of the complainant firm) Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation (for the harassment and financial expense caused by the instant forced upon litigation) within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid. In the meantime, the complainant shall however remain liable to pay all his current and future consumption charges for his actual consumption on regular basis.

11.      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 20, 2018.                                                    Member

*MK*