Complainant Ravinder Sharma 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 withdraw the illegal demand of Rs.2,21,620/- bill dated 16.2.2017 from him and the opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation i.e. mental agony and litigation expenses etc. in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has installed an electric connection in his house for domestic purpose bearing Account No.G57GT570070Y. He is using the electricity, paying the consumption bills regularly to the opposite parties and nothing is outstanding against him and as such he consumer of the opposite parties. He was shocked when he received bill dated 13.1.2017 in which the opposite party has illegally demanded huge amount of Rs.2,09,150/- which is illegal, null, void and against the rules and regulations of the Corporation which proves clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.  His consumption is not more than 200 units per month on average basis and status of meter is O.K. The opposite party has not recorded reading in the month of 10/2016 and 11/2016 and now the opposite parties issued bill dated 13.1.2017 in which they illegally demanded huge amount from him which is clear cut deficiency in service and trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. He has further pleaded that now the opposite parties issued bill dated 16.2.2017 amounting to Rs.2,21,620/- by adding previous bill amount of Rs.2,09,150/- and the penalties whatsoever imposed on the  previous amount from him. He visited the office of opposite party no.2 and requested to withdraw the illegal demand of impugned bill but they refused to do so. 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 matter in question is monetary matter and pertains to theft of energy and as such Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain present complaint. On merits, as per record maintained in the office of opposite parties electric connection in question has been installed at the house of complainant and connected load at the residence of complainant is 11 KW and which is 3 phase electric connection. It is submitted that since complainant has been concealing meter reading in connivance with spot billing agents he knew that when proper/exact reading of the meter will come into knowledge of officials of department he will have to make  good the loss which he has caused to department by suppressing the meter reading. In apprehension of same complainant moved application dated 30.11.2016 in the office of SDO, PSPCL, Sujanpur for checking his meter in ME Lab on the basis of allegation that meter is running fast. On the application of complainant requisite fee amounting to Rs.400/- was got deposited on same day and even it was also inspected by the concerned JE. Meter Change Order dated 30.11.2016 was also issued by concerned SDO and same MCO was effected on 22.12.2016. It is clear cut case of theft of energy by suppressing/concealing meter reading by adopting artificial means. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Thakur Pal Singh Pathania Addl. Assistant Engineer PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-7, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally acceptable statutory merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant had been the sanctioned holder of electric connection with A/c # GT570070Y at his residence at Village: Dadwan and the present dispute prompted upon his being in receipt of one inflated Bill dated 13.01.2017 for Rs.2,09,150/- (Ex.C2) for the period October’ 2016 to December’ 2016 whereas he has been paying all his consumption Bills up to the month of September’ 2016 demanded by the OP service providers vide the routine Bills of routine amounts as per his routine consumption etc. 

7.       We further find that the OP Corporation in its written reply and in its Affidavit Ex.OP1 has deposed that the impugned Bill comprising of Rs.2,09,150/- has been the result of arrears as the complainant has been conniving with the OP Spot Billing Agent to get low-amounted routine Bills knowing fully-well that upon being caught he shall be liable to pay the so-concealed amount(s). The OP Corporation have also produced Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 i.e., the evidentiary documents to support their above version and also to rebut, in return, the exhibits Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 as filed here by the present complainant sufficient to turn all their exhibits to get meaningless, lost in ambiguity.

8.       We are certainly not convinced with the clarifications as put forth by the OP Corporation to justify its act of the inadvertent arbitrary demand alleged to have resulted out of the alleged lower Bill(s) manipulated through the criminal connivance of their own Billing Agent. The OP Corporation has always been at liberty to take legal as well as disciplinary action against the defaulting consumer as well as own employee/agent but it preferred to act otherwise for undisclosed reasons best known to its officials, alone. And, the same has been decidedly in direct contravention of its own rules and regulations, as applicable on date; and that establishes ‘unfair trade practice’ coupled with ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the OP service providers and that rakes them up for an ‘adverse’ statutory award under the applicable statute. Moreover, the impugned demand as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the arbitrary amount by the opposite party corporation has been admittedly not a matter of routine and the same has not even been proved to be in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per its Sales/ Distribution Policy and the Rules & Regulations etc as framed, there under. 

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party corporation to withdraw the impugned Bill (Ex.C2/C3) and instead raise the applicable consumption charges on the basis of the complainant’s past consumption (history) record by duly appropriating the amount deposited by the complainant (if any) besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation and another Rs.2,000/- as cost of present litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual realization.

10.      Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

           (Naveen Puri)

                                                                           President   

Announced:                                                  (Jagdeep Kaur)

November, 15 2017                                                Member

*MK*