Complainant Santokh Singh 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 not to recover any amount as mentioned in bill dated 5.2.2018 as he had already paid excess amount due to wrong meter reading. Opposite parties be also directed to refund the amount received in excess from him alongwith all sorts of charges/taxes. Opposite parties be further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties  alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an Ex Serviceman. An electric domestic connection bearing A/C No.G 47 G 64 PT 420628N has been installed in his name. He is using the electricity, paying its bills etc. regularly, nothing is outstanding against him and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties issued a bill dated 10.10.2017 to him for period 10.8.2017 to 10.10.2017 in which meter reading was shown as previous 13637 and new 14287.  He paid the above mentioned bill. The opposite parties again issued a bill dated 4.12.2017 to him for 10.08.2017to 4.12.2017 in which meter reading was shown as previous 13637 and new 13855. He has next pleaded that to his utter surprise, the opposite parties issued a bill dated 5.2.2018 to him for period 10.8.2017 to 5.2.2010 in which meter reading was shown as previous 13637 and new 14191 amounting to Rs.1820/- and meter reading in this bill is correct. From 10.8.2017 to 5.2.2018, actual consumption made by him is 554 units, whereas the opposite parties had issued bills for this period for 1312 units. In this way, the opposite parties had charged excess bill for 728 units alongwith Cess, Octroi and other charges, which the opposite parties are liable to refund him.  Actually, the opposite parties had issued bill dated 10.10.2017 and 4.12.2017 without taking meter reading nor any meter reader ever came to take meter reading, which fact is event from bills that in all the three bills previous meter reading is shown as 13637. He has further pleaded that he after receiving bill dated 5.2.2018 approached the opposite party no.1 and requested him to rectify the abovementioned bills and to refund the amount received in excess alongwith all charges, as till issuance of bill dated 5.2.2018 his meter reading was previous 13637 and now 14191, where as he had paid bill in the month of Oct. for 14287units again for the same reading he paid bill in December 2018, whereas consumption upto issuance of bill dated 5.2.2018 is still less than 14287 units. Opposite party no.1 called him to his office time twice and refused to take any action in the matter. Thus, there is deficiency and negligence 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 taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint; the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and the concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately; the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present suit against the opposite parties. On merits, it was admitted that the account no.PT 42/628 was sanctioned in the name of the complainant.  It was submitted that opposite parties have sent the bill of reading i.e. 14,287 in the month of August, 2017 which was found incorrect. At presently the reading of the complainant is 14500 units on 7.5.2018 which was verified by the Area J.E. Mani Singh and the same was rectified by opposite parties and the refund of Rs.6337/- to the account of the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 4.      Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex. C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5.      Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Pal A.A.E, S.D.O. PSPCLtd. Ex.OP-1, alongwith other document Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.

6.    We have carefully gone through the pleadings and written arguments 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.

7.       Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 are the photocopies of the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties. In the bill dated 10.10.2017 the previous reading is shown as 13637 and the new reading as 14287 in the bill dated 4.12.2017, previous reading is shown as 13637 and the new reading as 13855 and again in the bill dated 5.2.2018 the previous reading is shown as 13637 and the new reading as 14191.91. It shows that the opposite parties issued these bills without taking meter reading which fact is evident from the bills that in all the three previous bills, the previous meter reading is shown as 13637.

8.      Ex.OP-1 is the sworn affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Pal AAE, S.D.O. PSPCL wherein it is specifically declared that the opposite parties had sent a bill of reading i.e. 14287 in the month of August 2017, which was found incorrect. As on 7.5.2018, the reading of the electricity meter is 14500 units, as verified by the Area J.E.Mani Singh and the same was rectified by the opposite parties and the refund of Rs.6337/- was made in the account of the complainant.

9.         In the present case, the complainant has submitted in the written arguments that the amount of Rs.6337/- has not been refunded in his account whereas opposite party has written in its written arguments that the excess amount of Rs.6337/- has been refunded in the account of the complainant but opposite parties have failed to produce any evidence on record to show that the amount of Rs.6337/- has been refunded in the account of complainant charging the excess amount from the complainant amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and complainant was forced to go into litigation when the opposite party refused to adjust the said amount.

10.       In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint with a direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.6337/- in the account of the complainant within 30 days of receiving the certified copy of the order. Opposite parties is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

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

            (Neelam Gupta)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                                   (Harvimal Dogra)

March 5, 2021                                                      Member

*MK*