Complainant Pashauri Lal 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 correct the bill dated 10.11.2016 and 8.01.2017 for total amount of Rs.42,043/- and to receive the actual consumption charges on the basis of average consumption of previous bills. Opposite parties be further directed to restrain from recovering the amount of bill in dispute under threat of disconnection electricity connection. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by 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 is having domestic electricity connection bearing Consumer No.G 47 TF 540745L and his connected load is 1 KW. The electricity consumption of the connection as per bill Jan.2016 is 348 Units. The old consumption is 4173 and new is 4521 units. The electricity consumption of March 2016 is 282 units. In the said bill, old consumption is 4521 units and new is 4803 units. The electricity consumption of this connection as per electricity bill for the month of May 2016 is 518. The old unit is shown as 4803 and new as 5321, July 2016 is 386 old consumption is 5321 and new one is 5707, September 2016 is 406 and old consumption is shown as 5707 and new as 6113. The electricity consumption upto September 2016 is shown as correct. The opposite party issued bill of Rs.2720/- of 406 units and in this bill the consumption is shown as 6113 and old 5707. This bill amount was deposited by him. He has next pleaded that the opposite party no.3 issued bill on 10.11.2016 for Rs.25,810/- for 3420 units in which the old consumption is shown as 6113 units and new as 9542 units. The bill amount as well as consumption shown in this bill is wrong, illegal and exorbitant. His last five bills were between 300 to 500 units. He has further pleaded that the meter is defective, showing inflated consumption after September 2016. He approached the opposite party no.3 for correction of bill, for checking of meter and deposited the requisite fee. The meter was checked by the opposite party in his absence and they wrongly reported that the meter is correct with a view to cover the illegal meter reading shown by the meter due to technical defect. Now after checking of the meter, the meter was reinstalled and the same was now giving correct reading. When this meter was removed for checking on 20.12.2016 the meter reading was 11620 units from previous meter reading 9542. The meter remained defective from Sept. 2016 to Dec. 2016. The meter was reinstalled on 2.1.2017. The opposite party wrongly reported that meter was correct and not defective. After the reinstallation of meter, the opposite party no.3 again issued bill dated 8.01.2017 for Rs.42,043/- by adding amount of Rs.25,810/- of previous bill dated 10.11.2016. In this bill new consumption is shown as 2091 units i.e. new 11633 and old as 9542 units. The bill dated 10.11.2016 for Rs.25,810/- of 3429 units and bill dated 8.1.2017 for Rs.42,043/- for 2091 units are illegal, highly inflated, exorbitant and not based on actual consumption. 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.25,810/- vide bill dated 10.11.2016 of the complainant is a legal and genuine demand as it is based on the actual consumption of the complainant; the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands as he has suppressed some material facts from this Hon’ble Court and the complainant has filed a false, frivolous complaint and having no merits, be dismissed with costs. On merits, it was submitted that the bill dated 10.11.2016 for Rs.25,810/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant is a legal and genuine bill as it is based on the actual consumption of the complainant. The bill in dispute is totally based on the actual consumption of the complainant which was of 3420 units. After receiving the said bill the complainant moved an application on 25.11.2016 to the opposite party no.3 regarding the wrong reading of his electric meter and his application was marked to Sh.Gurmeet Singh J.E. who inspected the electric meter of the complainant on 25.11.2016, 26.11.2016 and 27.11.2016 and his meter reading was found as 11506, 11516 and 11528 respectively and his electric meter was found as O.K. It has been further submitted that the complainant challenged his electric meter and deposited Rs.120/- as meter challenging fees on 5.12.2016. Then an MCO vide No.1211/43 was issued on 5.12.2016 and which was effected on 5.12.2016. The electric meter of the complainant was changed on 5.12.2016 by Gurmeet Singh J.E. O/o Opp Party No.3 in the presence of the authorized agent of the complainant. The old electric meter of the complainant was removed and packed and properly sealed on 5.12.2016 in the presence of the authorized agent of the complainant who put his signatures on the packed and sealed electric meter and also on the consent letter to open the electric meter in the absence of the complainant. Then his electric meter was sent to the M.E.Lab. Gurdaspur vide Challan No.51 dated 27.12.2016 and his meter was checked on 29.12.2016 and it was found that the working of the electric meter of the complainant is O.K. Hence his bill in dispute is based on the actual consumption of the complainant. So, there is not any kind of deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. So, the complainant is bound to pay the said electric bill. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Baljit Singh S.D.O. Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.OP-11 and closed the evidence.
6. 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. Ld.counsel for the complainant has argued that the electricity consumption of the connection as per bill Jan.2016 is 348 Units. The old consumption is 4173 and new is 4521 units. The electricity consumption of March 2016 is 282 units. In the said bill, old consumption is 4521 units and new is 4803 units. The electricity consumption of this connection as per electricity bill for the month of May 2016 is 518. The old unit is shown as 4803 and new as 5321, July 2016 is 386 old consumption is 5321 and new one is 5707, September 2016 is 406 and old consumption is shown as 5707 and new as 6113. The electricity consumption upto September 2016 is shown as correct. The opposite party issued bill of Rs.2720/- of 406 units and in this bill the consumption is shown as 6113 and old 5707. This bill amount was deposited by him. He has further argued that the opposite party no.3 issued bill on 10.11.2016 for Rs.25,810/- for 3420 units in which the old consumption is shown as 6113 units and new as 9542 units. The bill amount as well as consumption shown in this bill is wrong, illegal and exorbitant. The meter is defective, showing inflated consumption after September 2016. After checking of the meter, the meter was reinstalled and the same was now giving correct reading. When this meter was removed for checking on 20.12.2016 the meter reading was 11620 units from previous meter reading 9542. The meter remained defective from Sept. 2016 to Dec. 2016. The meter was reinstalled on 2.1.2017. The opposite party wrongly reported that meter was correct and not defective. After the reinstallation of meter, the opposite party no.3 again issued bill dated 8.01.2017 for Rs.42,043/- by adding amount of Rs.25,810/- of previous bill dated 10.11.2016. In this bill new consumption is shown as 2091 units i.e. new 11633 and old as 9542 units. The bill dated 10.11.2016 for Rs.25,810/- of 3429 units and bill dated 8.1.2017 for Rs.42,043/- for 2091 units are illegal. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the bill dated 10.11.2016 for Rs.25,810/- issued to the complainant is a legal and genuine bill as it is based on the actual consumption of the complainant. The bill in dispute is totally based on the actual consumption of the complainant which was of 3420 units. After receiving the said bill the complainant moved an application on 25.11.2016 to the opposite party no.3 regarding the wrong reading of his electric meter and his application was marked to Sh.Gurmeet Singh J.E. who inspected the electric meter of the complainant on 25.11.2016, 26.11.2016 and 27.11.2016 and his meter reading was found as 11506, 11516 and 11528 respectively and his electric meter was found as O.K. He has further argued that the complainant challenged his electric meter and deposited Rs.120/- as meter challenging fees on 5.12.2016. Then an MCO vide No.1211/43 was issued on 5.12.2016 which was effected on 5.12.2016. The electric meter of the complainant was changed on 5.12.2016 by Gurmeet Singh J.E. O/o Opp Party No.3 in the presence of the authorized agent of the complainant. The old electric meter of the complainant was removed and packed and properly sealed on 5.12.2016 in the presence of the authorized agent of the complainant who put his signatures on the packed and sealed electric meter and also on the consent letter to open the electric meter in the absence of the complainant. Then his electric meter was sent to the M.E.Lab. Gurdaspur vide Challan No.51 dated 27.12.2016 and his meter was checked on 29.12.2016 and it was found that the working of the electric meter of the complainant is O.K. Hence his bill in dispute is based on the actual consumption of the complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In our opinion, the opposite party has rightly charged the disputed amount from the complainant.
8. In the light of the all above, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such the complaint is hereby dismissed. No orders as to the present costs
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges and file be duly consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (Jagdeep Kaur)
March,05 2018 Member
*MK*
