The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that the complainant had installed an electric meter for domestic purpose in his house at Dinanagar vide A/c No. G-62-CF-233064-P and is a recorded consumer of the opposite parties. In the previous bills of complainant the average bill of the complainant was coming @ Rs.1100/- to Rs.1600/-. The complainant is paying his bills regularly online. The complainant has also paid his last bill which was for the time period from 06.04.2018 to 04.06.2018. The last measured units as per the last bill is 520. The complainant was stunned to receive bill dated 14.08.2018 amounting to Rs.26670/- which was for the time period from 06.04.2018 to 14.06.2018 for consumption of units from 303 to 3539 i.e. 3236 units. It is further averred that after receiving this exorbitant bill, complainant being aggrieved moved an application to the opposite party No. 2 for correction of his bill and inspection of his meter. But, in spite of doing inspection of the meter, the agent of the opposite party simply noted down the reading of the electric meter without even trying to diagnose the error in the electric meter. The spot inspection report is Ex. C-5. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant made several efforts to get his bill rectified, but the opposite parties in spite of doing any correction in the bill or verifying the working of the meter flatly refused to resolve the grievance of the complainant and started threatening the complainant to disconnect the meter in case he will not pay the bill in dispute. The issuance of bill in dispute imposing huge amount to the tune of Rs.26,670/- creates deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and the opposite parties be directed not to recover Rs.26,670/- shown in the bill dated 14.08.2018 and further directed the opposite parties not to disconnect the electric supply of the complainant and demand of the opposite parties may be quashed and the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses.

2.              Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared through their counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint with the intention to harass the opposite parties; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately; and the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it is submitted that in fact, the amount demanded by the opposite parties vide bill dated 14.08.2018 is legal and genuine and as per consumption. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The other allegations made in the complaint are denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merit and the same may be dismissed with costs.

3.            Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the opposite parties, whereby reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and denied those of the written reply.

4.            In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on the file his own affidavit along with certain documents i.e. copies of previous bills Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3, bill dated 14.8.2018 Ex. C-4, spot inspection report Ex. C-5, receipts Ex. C-6 and Ex. C-7 and bill dated 04.10.2018 Ex. C-8.

5.              On the other hand, the opposite parties have produced on record the affidavit of Er. Suresh Kumar, SDO, PSPCL, Sub Division, Dinanagar as Ex. OP-1.

6.               We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7.          Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant had got installed an electric meter for domestic purpose in his house at Dinanagar vide A/c No. G-62-CF-233064-P and is a recorded consumer of the opposite parties. In the previous bills of complainant the average bill of the complainant was coming @ Rs.1100/- to Rs.1600/- and the complainant is paying his bills regularly online. The complainant has also paid his last bill which was for the time period from 06.04.2018 to 04.06.2018. The last measured units as per the last bill is 520. The complainant was stunned to receive bill dated 14.08.2018 amounting to Rs.26,670/- which was for the period 06.04.2018 to 14.06.2018 for consumption of units from 303 to 3539 i.e. 3236 units. That after receiving this exorbitant bill, complainant being aggrieved moved an application to the opposite party No. 2 for correction of his bill and inspection of his meter. But, in spite of doing inspection of the meter, the agent of the opposite party simply noted down the reading of the electric meter without even trying to diagnose the error in the electric meter. The complainant made several efforts to get his bill rectified, but the opposite parties in spite of doing any correction in the bill or verifying the working of the meter flatly refused to resolve the grievance of the complainant and started threatening the complainant to disconnect the meter in case he will not pay the bill in dispute. The issuance of bill in dispute imposing huge amount to the tune of Rs.26,670/- amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

8.            The counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant did not get checked his meter from the M.E. Lab and he pointed out the negligence on the part of the complainant. However, on going through Ex.C-5, it is noted that the complainant filed an application addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL, Dinanagar, regarding defective meter and correction of reading and the Asst. Executive Engineer marked this application to JE on 16.08.2018 and the JE visited the premises and checked the meter and gave his observation as under :-

Reading - 003575

Sr. No. - 2052950

Company - Holley Meter

Capacity - 10-60 A

But, no instructions were given to the complainant to get checked the meter from the ME Lab. If the JE can report the meter reading and other particulars he could have directed the complainant to get the meter checked from the ME Lab. Therefore, no negligence on the part of the complainant is proved.

9.           Further, we have observed that the opposite parties have not specifically denied the allegations made in the complaint. The opposite parties have only placed on record one affidavit of Er. Suresh Kumar, SDO, which reads as under :

“That, the amount demanded by the opposite parties vide bill dated 14.08.2018 is legal and genuine and as per consumption. There is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.”

Since the opposite parties have not filed detailed affidavit in support of averments made in the written reply, therefore we are of the considered view that the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant have remained unrebutted and unchallenged and full reliance is being placed on the documents produced by the complainant and consequently, it is held that demand raised by the opposite parties vide bill dated 14.08.2018 is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.

10.           In view of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and the demand raised by the opposite parties vide bill dated 14.08.2018 for Rs.26,670/- is hereby quashed and the opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.4,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

11.           This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

ANNOUNCED:                                       (Shri Raj Singh)       (Rajita Sareen)

December 30, 2019.                                         Member      Presiding Member

 MK