Complainant Rajiv Sharma 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  set aside illegal demand raised vide bill dated 09.09.2017 amounting to Rs.49,190/- shown as amount payable by due date by refunding a sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited under threat and force of concerned S.D.O. Dhariwal and fresh bill may kindly be issued to him on the basis of average of previous bills. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as unnecessary physical and mental harassment  alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he and his family members have settled at Gurgaon and his mother namely Smt.Sudarshna Sharma aged about 70 years is residing alone in the house in which disputed electricity connection bearing Account No.G31EF921941N has been installed in his name. He/his representative paying electricity bills regularly and nothing are due against him. The average of previous electricity bills issued by the opposite party was only minimum Rs.782/- (as per bill dated 10.5.2016) to maximum Rs.4417/- (as per bill dated 12.5.2017) for the consumption of two months. Opposite parties issued bill dated 9.9.2017 for Rs.49,190/- shown as payable by due date, which was so excessive huge, exorbitant as per average basis.  He has further pleaded that his mother reached to the office of the opposite party no.2 alongwith written application dated 13.9.2017 and also requested to concerned S.D.O. Dhariwal to set aside the illegal amount and also issue fresh electricity bill on the basis of average of previous bills S.D.O. marked the same to his J.E. but unfortunately no action was taken by the opposite parties.  After passing a few days, she again reached to the office of opposite party no.2 alongwith application dated 22.09.2017 and also deposited Rs.120/- as meter checking fee vide receipt no.164 dated 22.9.2017 but again party have failed to  conduct inquiry into the matter. He has next pleaded that under the threat and forceful attitude, his mother had to deposit Rs.25,000/- as partial payment to the opposite party and concerned S.D.O. Dhariwal namely Subash Kumar also obtained her signatures on papers and threatened that in case, she would fail to deposit remaining amount in that case, she and her son to be put into criminal case. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2.  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 present complaint is not maintainable and there is no any deficiency on the part of opposite parties. On merits, it was submitted that it has been found that the complainant has managed to conceal the actual consumption of units reflected by electricity meter with the connivance of erstwhile meter reader of his locality, who was changed and disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the P.S.P.C.L. It was next submitted that answering party is ready to check the meter in the M.E.Lab as per the procedure of the PSPCLtd.  It was denied that SDO Dhariwal obtained the signatures of the mother of the complainant on blank paper and threatened her. It was next submitted that the complainant was managing reduced electricity units with connivance of erstwhile meter reduced of PSPCL for the following months:-

a) Sep 2016

b) Nov 2016

c) Jan 2017

d) Mar 2017

e) May 2017

f) July 2017

The later on in Sept 2017 meter reader of his locality was changed on reporting of some complainant against him. On checking actual meter reading by the new meter reader of PSPCLtd., Sub Division, Dhariwal. It was found that the meter was actually showing reading as 6765 units, consumed by the complainant, earlier which the complainant managed to conceal with the connivance of erstwhile meter reader of his locality. If there is any objection to the complainant regarding working of the electricity meter, he can get his meter examined by depositing requisite fees to the P.S.P.C.Ltd. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 and of Smt.Sudarshan Sharma Ex.C-2 along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C3 to Ex.C19 and closed the evidence.

5.      Ld.counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Dalbir Singh Assistant Accounts Officer Revenue PSPCLtd., Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

6.    Written arguments have been filed on behalf of complainant.

7.    We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; 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.

8.       As detailed above present complaint is filed by complainant against issue of excessive and exorbitant electricity bill dated 13.9.2017 for an amount of Rs.49,190/- by opposite parties, which is placed at Ex.C-3, but normally the bill amount is much less. It is also alleged by complainant that request was also made to opposite parties on 13.9.2010 (Ex.C-10, C-11) but no action has been taken by opposite parties. Thereafter meter was challenged by depositing the requisite fee Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 on 22.9.2017.

9.      Opposite parties has denied all the allegations in their written statement and stated that the electricity bill in dispute is for actual units consumed at premises of the complainant during September, 2016 to July 2017. It is clarified by opposite parties that complainant was suppressing the meter reading with the connivance of erstwhile meter reader of PSPCL during this period. Actual reading was disclosed by new meter reader in September 2017 and electricity bill for difference of units of 6765 units is issued on 9.9.2017.

10.      Meter working was challenged by complainant and opposite party has got it checked from M.E.Lab. As per checking report of M.E.Lab., dated 15.2.2018 which is placed at Ex.OP-3 by opposite parties shows the meter working status as OK.

11.      As per consumption detail given in the data submitted by opposite party at Ex.OP-2, it varies from 143 units to 432 units bimonthly during the period from 7/16 to 9/17.  As per copy of bill at Ex.C-5 the sanctioned load of the complainant is 4.90 KW.

12.      In the written argument, the complainant has made the doubt of technical fault of meter and sudden jump of meter reading.

13.     As per para 14 of reply of opposite party w.r.t. the application of complaint it is mentioned by opposite party that the complainant has not paid subsequent electricity bills also other than the bill in dispute. Hence this electric connection is disconnected vide TDCO No.17/805 dated 8.9.2020.

14.      From the above facts and figures of the case, we are of the considered view that the justification given by opposite parties for the  issue of electricity bill in dispute is in order, as the meter working report of M.E. Lab is OK, moreover the bimonthly consumption during this period  does not seems to be as per sanctioned load of complainant. On the other hand, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties also as the meter reader was suppressing the reading for over 10 months but opposite party has not taken any notice of it earlier and no action has been taken on the delinquent official of PSPCL for this misact.  Besides this, as per Regulation no.30.1.2 of Supply Code a separate bill cum notice was required to be issued by opposite party for this under assessment prior to clubbing it with regular bill. But opposite party has no where mentioned regarding issue of such notice. Further as per this regulation no punitive action can be taken for its non-payment if the arrear is included in the current bill at first instance. Opposite party failed to follow these instructions.

15.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, the electricity bill in dispute is hereby considered to be in order and the complaint is hereby disposed off accordingly. However, for non compliance of regulation no.30.1.2 of Supply Code of opposite party, opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

16.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

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

            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

April 28, 2022                                                     Member

*MK*