Complainant Savinder Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned demand raised in the bill dated 09.05.2016 and to set aside/quash the bill in question and to issue bill after making proper consumption. Complainant has further claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment as well as mental agony. Complainant has also claimed Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that his father had installed an electric connection bearing A/c No.G-23DK-450982M in his name and was paying the electricity charges continuously to the opposite parties without any default. It was pleaded that father of the complainant had died and after his demise complainant was using the said electricity connection being beneficiary and was paying the electricity charges continuously to the opposite parties without any default and in this way he is hiring the services of the opposite parties and as such he is the consumer of the opposite parties. It was pleaded that complainant is scheduled caste and comes under the Scheme of Exemption of 200 units per month and opposite parties had also exempted the bill of the complainant for 200 units per month. It was further pleaded that opposite parties had issued a bill dated 09.05.2016 amounting to Rs.90,940/- to the complainant which was totally illegal, null & void and is not binding upon the rights of the complainant as there was nothing outstanding against him and complainant had paid all the entire previous bills and he had never consumed such like heavy excessive energy. It was also pleaded that there are few equipments lying in the house of the complainant which are plying with the electricity but 400 units of the complainant per bill had already been exempted by the opposite parties so the question of such huge amount levied upon by the opposite parties does not arise at all. Moreover, after the receipt of the impugned bill complainant had approached the opposite party No.3 and requested them to withdraw the impugned demand raised in bill in question but opposite party No.3 firstly putting off the matter with one pretext or the other and lastly refused to admit the claim of the complainant and threatened him that they will disconnect his electricity supply in case of non payment of the impugned demand. It was next pleaded that due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties complainant had suffered great mental agony as well as physical harassment from the hands of the opposite parties and as such there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence this complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complainant is not their consumer as electricity connection is running in the name of father of the complainant and there is no privity of contract between the parties; that the demand of Rs.90,940/- raised in the bill dated 09.05.2016 from the complainant was legal and genuine and was based on his actual consumption; complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis joinder of the necessary parties; complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands as he had suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Forum and complainant had filed a false and frivolous complaint and having no merits. On merits, it was stated that the electric connection bearing A/c No.G-23DK-450982M was installed in the name of the father of the complainant in his premises in July, 2010 by opposite party No.3 through a private company namely KLG and the father of the complainant was getting the benefit of the scheme of exemption of 200 units per month and it was admitted that the bill dated 09.05.2016 amounting to Rs.90,940/- was issued to the complainant. It was stated that the father of the complainant got electric connection in July, 2010 which was installed by the opposite party No.3 through a private company namely KLG and the father of the complainant was also getting the benefit of scheme of exemption of 200 units per month since July, 2010. It was further stated that a complaint was received by opposite party No.3 from Mandeep Singh son of Suba Singh which was addressed to Chairman-cum-C.M.D. PSPCL Patiala stating therein that some villagers including the father of the complainant getting the benefit of exemption of 200 units per month under BPL/S.C. scheme by producing fake BPL cards/S.C. certificates and upon this a notice vide memo No.191 dated 02.02.2016 was issued to the father of the complainant and directed him to produce the BPL card/S.C. certificate within seven days as there was no record regarding your exemption of 200 units per month in their office but the father of the complainant failed to produce the same in their office within the stipulated period of seven days and as such amount of consumed units since July 2010 to Jan. 2016 was legally added in the disputed bill of the complainant. It was also stated that after checking the record it was found that the computer charged the double amount from the complainant in the bill in question and his half bill amounting to Rs.43,101/- had already been deducted from his bill and as such bill in question is legal and genuine and as per his actual consumption and he was liable to pay the same. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5. Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Tejinderpal Singh SDO Ex.OP-1 along with documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

6. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable 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 beneficiary and legal heir (son) of the DS A/c SC category holder of consumer A/c # G23 DK 450982M and the present dispute prompted at his having in receipt of the inflated consumption Bill date 09.05.2016 for Rs.90,940/- (Ex.C2) further followed by moderated/reduced Bill dated 06.07.2016 for Rs.52,560/- (Ex.C3) and these were refused to be set-aside/withdrawn in spite of the fact that the OP Corporation has duly admitted ‘non-conduct’ of proper inquiry at the complaint of one Mandeep Singh against the deceased A/c holder coupled with the admittedly ‘wrong’ double/inaccurate reading at the OP’s computer resulting into the impugned Bill (Ex.C2) even at the face of the OP department’s ‘deficiency in service’ topped up by an unchecked ‘adoption’ of unfair trade practice.

7. We further find that the OP Corporation in its written reply and the evidentiary documents produced as its affidavit Ex.OP1 (and others as: Ex.OP2 & Ex.OP5) has failed to prove ‘conduct’ of any departmental inquiry into the truth of allegations raised in the sundry ‘complaint’ against the deceased A/c holder and have simply drawn the impugned Bill through an admittedly ‘defective’ computer indicating ‘twice’ the wrong readings. It is not understood as to how the complainant shall be liable to pay for the readings of a defective computer; and that too in the absence of any good reason (logical purpose) and/or details of the arbitrarily alleged ‘charges’ 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 framed, there under.

8. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party corporation to withdraw the impugned Bills in dispute (Ex.C2 & Ex.C3) and instead raise actual consumption charges as per the ‘in order’ readings upon the complainant (as per his eligibility and entitlement) besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the present orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the complaint till actual payment. The complainant shall be liable to pay the applicable consumption charges only from the date of the impugned Bill onwards and thus the OP Service Providers shall raise only the appropriate Bills comprised of applicable consumption charges only.

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

(Naveen Puri)

                                                                                  President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                (Jagdeep Kaur)

OCT. 28, 2016                                                             Member.

*YP*