Complainant Narinder Kumar through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to withdraw their illegal bills dated 19.5.2014 and 21.6.2014 and to refund the amount illegally charged. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and deficiency in service alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is consumer of the opposite party and is having a domestic electric connection bearing A/C No.G-65CF481144K and he is law abiding citizen and is old person and never made default in making payment of bills and has been paying the energy charges to the opposite parties regularly without any default. He has further pleaded that the opposite party sent him bill dated 19.5.2014 for Rs.1,99,060/- which is illegal, null and void. He approached to the opposite parties to withdraw the abovesaid illegal demand, but the opposite party refused to withdraw the same and even threatened him to disconnect his electricity connection. To save disconnection, he deposited Rs.1,82,687/-. Opposite parties again sent bill dated 21.6.2014 in which the opposite parties again made huge demand of Rs.43,310/-, which is illegal, null and void. He again went to the opposite party to enquire regarding this amount, but of no avail. He has next pleaded that the previous bills for the year 2012 and 2013 shows less consumption and even the bill dated 12.3.2014 the status of bill is average and meter Code showing ‘N’. The previous bill consumption clearly shows that the bill under challenge are not showing the correct consumption and the excessive bills are due to running fast or there was spurt and the meter is defective and not showing the actual consumption. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply admitting therein that complainant is consumer of the opposite parties but it was not admitted that complainant is having electric connection bearing Account No.G65CF481144K installed at his house for domestic purpose and that complainant never made default in payment of bills. The demand of the complainant from opposite parties regarding withdrawal of electricity bill dated 19.5.2014 was absolutely illegal and as such could not be acceded. It was incorrect that opposite parties threatened complainant to disconnect his electric connection and in order to save his disconnection the complainant deposited amount of Rs.1,82,687/-. Every consumer is aware of the fact that department will take legal action as per rules and regulations of PSPCL against them in case of non payment of electricity bills. Similarly complainant was also aware of said fact and such deposited abovesaid amount in the office of opposite parties. It was incorrect that bill dated 21.6.2014 was sent by opposite parties to complainant but the demand of the bill of Rs.43,310/- raised through said bill is illegal, null and void. As a matter of fact said amount has been demanded by opposite parties from complainant against consumption of electricity. Consumption of every consumer varies as per his/her requirement and record pertaining to previous consumption of complainant is not going to help complainant in any manner. So for as matter pertaining to bill issued on average consumption are concerned, in such a matter account of the consumer is always overhauled and excessive or less received is always adjusted in future bills. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
- Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C25 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Sanjiv Saini 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-15 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 observe that the OP service providers have admittedly drawn the impugned Bills nos.2292 dated 19.05.2014 for Rs.1,99,060/- (Ex.C23) and 6687 dated 21.06.2014 for Rs.43,310/- (Ex.C22) upon the complainant but in A/c # G65GT650464N and not in # G65CF481144K as inadvertently appearing in the body of the complaint. However, starting with the written reply and throughout the entire proceedings of the present complaint, the OP service providers have been simply denying the allegations of illegality, arbitrariness and other imputations as alleged in the complaint but without the requisite support of any cogent evidence, logic and satisfactory explanation etc. A simple denial of allegations sans the support of acceptable evidence does not refute/negate the imputations to prove the innocence of defense. The affidavit Ex.OP1 produced by the OP’s SDO is simply the deposition of the written reply and does not add/ subtract anything, afresh to the defense. The other exhibits Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP15 are the OP’s official communiqués and the purpose of producing these on records has not been disclosed throughout the proceedings except in paragraph ‘3’ of the written-arguments wherein it has been alleged that the complainant with the active connivance of one OP employee Ramesh Kumar (written as Ramesh Chand in some exhibits) did manipulate the meter readings and thus caused ‘loss’ to the OP and by making him pay the present impugned Bills the ‘loss’ shall be recovered. We are shockingly surprised to have this ‘immature wordings’ in the garb of ‘argument’ and cannot but right away reject the same. It becomes evident that the OP service providers have no defense to plead and justifiably explain the criterion of the impugned Bills that are thus bound to get set-aside. However, the OP service providers shall always be at liberty to initiate appropriate legal action against the alleged offenders causing unlawful loss (to the OP) of course in accordance with the civil as well as criminal law of the land. But here the OP service providers have failed to produce any cogent evidence so as to stall the advancing adverse award under the Act.
8. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties to withdraw the two impugned Electricity Bills dated 19.05.2014 & 21.06.2014 for Rs.1,99,060/- & Rs.43,310/- respectively and refund the entire amount received there against along with the sundry deposits, if any (deposited by the complainant) besides to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost and compensation 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 these orders till actually paid.
- 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)
JUNE 12, 2015 Member.
*MK*
