Complainant Prithvi Chand vide 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 bill dated 28.3.2019 amounting to Rs.92,630/- and declare the same illegal, null and void and also withdraw their illegal threats to disconnect his electric connection. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony and any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem it fit, may also be granted him, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he got installed domestic electric meter in his name bearing A/C No.G18UF471761L. He belongs to Schedule Caste and at the time of installing the electric connection, he applied under the category of Schedule Caste and opposite parties installed abovesaid electric connection in his name under Schedule Caste Category and load of electric meter in question is less than 1 KW i.e. 0.98KIW. He consumed electricity less than 200 units per bill and due to this, bill of the connection in dispute came minus, 200 units are free to the Schedule Caste Category persons. He has further pleaded that the opposite parties issued bill dated 28.3.2019 to him and raised illegal demand of Rs.92,630/-and after receiving the bill, he approached the opposite party no.2 and asked them to explain regarding abovesaid amount but they refused to explain the same and threatened to recover the abovesaid amount under the threat of disconnection of electric connection. The bill dated 28.3.2019 issued by the opposite parties is illegal, null and void. The opposite parties never replaced his electric meter in his presence and never got checked the same from M.E.Lab  in the presence of the complainant and if there is any alleged report of the M.E.Lab which shows that his electric meter checked from the M.E.Lab, that report is illegal null and void, forged and fabricated and same is not binding upon him. He requested the opposite parties to withdraw illegal bill dated 28.3.2019 and also withdraw illegal threats to recover the amount of Rs.92,630/- from him under the threat of disconnection of electric connection but the opposite parties refused to admit his claim. Hence, this complaint.

 3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately; the present complaint is not maintainable; the complaint of the complainant is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder in the present form as the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the meter reader reported in the exception list for the month of August, 2018 regarding the remarks of defective meter of the complainant, hence the opposite parties changed the electric meter of the complainant vide MCO No.20/816 dated 31.10.2018, which was effected by Parveen Kumar J.E. Thereafter, the meter was packed in the cardboard and sent to the M.E.Lab vide Challan No.41 dated 3.1.2019 as the consent for checking the meter in the M.E.Lab was given by the complainant. During the checking of the M.E.Lab, the reading of the meter was found 16292 units whereas the complainant has paid the bill upto the reading of 5797 units, hence the difference of 10495 units is recoverable from the complainant. When the opposite parties issued the notice no.26 dated 9.1.2019 for the recovery of disputed amount but the complainant neither moved any objection to the opposite parties nor deposit the disputed amount, thus the opposite parties added the same amount in the bill in question. So, the amount demanded by the opposite parties is legal and genuine as the complainant has consumed the electricity and he is bound to pay its charges.  All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

 4.        Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit and filed documents from Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.

5.      Alongwith written statement, opposite parties has filed affidavit of Sh.Balwinder Singh, S.D.O. PSEB Sub Division Uddanwal  Ex.OP/A and filed documents from OP-1 to OP-6.

6.    We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; written arguments filed by the opposite parties and oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.     Ld.counsel for the complainant has argued that opposite parties have sent a electricity bill to the complainant amounting to Rs.92,630/- without any reason and nothing is due and payable towards the complainant against the electric charges. The complainant further stated that  he is under Schedule Caste Category and load of electric meter in question is less than 1 KW i.e. 0.98KIW. He consumed electricity less than 200 units per bill and due to this, bill of the connection in dispute came minus, 200 units are free to the Schedule Caste Category persons. The complainant requested the opposite parties to rectify the bill and also prayed for the setting aside the illegal demand of amounting to Rs.92,630/- alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. The complainant further stated that the opposite parties never replaced his electric meter in his presence and never checked the same from M.E.Lab  in his presence and if there is any alleged report of the M.E.Lab which shows that his electric meter checked from the M.E.Lab, that report is illegal null and void, forged and fabricated and same is not binding upon him. Complainant has filed an affidavit stating therein that he is residing separate 100 meters away from his father’s house and he has no connection/link with his father and his father is illiterate person.

 8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the opposite parties argued that the meter reader reported in the exception list for the month of August, 2018 regarding the remarks of defective meter of the complainant, hence the opposite parties changed the electric meter of the complainant vide MCO No.20/816 dated 31.10.2018, which was effected by Parveen Kumar J.E. Thereafter, the meter was packed in the cardboard and sent to the M.E.Lab vide Challan No.41 dated 3.1.2019 as the consent for checking the meter in the M.E.Lab was given by the complainant. During the checking of the M.E.Lab, the reading of the meter was found 16292 units whereas the complainant has paid the bill upto the reading of 5797 units, hence the difference of 10495 units is recoverable from the complainant.

9.      We find that the present dispute has arisen on account of the OP Corporation  bill dated 28.3.2019 for Rs.92,630/- (Ex.C1) drawn upon the complainant as consumption charges (during the period) on account of the faulty Meter that was however changed on 26.08.2015 at the request of the complainant. The OP service providers have further stated that the ‘defective’ Meter was sent to the OP’s ME Lab for testing etc and it was at the ME Lab’s directive/report that the impugned memo (raising a Bill of Rs.92,630/-) was issued (for deposit) to the complainant. Somehow, the OP Corporation has not even attempted to legally justify the ME Lab directed Bill by producing on record some acceptable cogent evidence say governing Sales Rules etc. The affidavit of the dealing hands/Lab Inspector(s) has also not been produced on records. Even, the ‘working’ status of the Electric Meter has not been produced on records. We find this ‘lapse’ as amounting to ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the OP service providers and that lines them up for an adverse statutory award under the applicable law.     

10.          On perusal of file it is transpired that no notice has been issued to the complainant before adding the above said huge impugned amount in the current bill. No one should be condemned unheard. An opportunity must be given for hearing before imposing such huge amount in the bill. Here no opportunity has been given for hearing before adding this bill whereas the complainant is paying the bills regularly. Complainant has right to know what he is paying and why he is paying. Som Nath father of the complainant is an illiterate person and complainant has no concern/link with his father as he is residing separate 100 meters away from his father.  The consent letter should have been signed by the beneficiary/complainant. The opposite parties cannot take benefit of its own wrong.

11.            So keeping in view the above discussion, we find that opposite party is deficient in providing service and hence we partly allow the complaint and set aside the impugned demand of Rs.92,630/- raised in the bill dated 28.3.2019 and further direct the opposite party to refund the amount, if any deposited  by the complainant against this impugned bill.  Opposite parties is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compensation and Rs.4000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

12.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.                                                                                                                                                         

          (Neelam Gupta)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                    (Jyotsna)

August 04, 2021                                               Member

*MK*