Complainant Sher Amarjit Singh 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 notice letter No.478 dated 21.03.2017 and not to  recover any amount illegally, forcibly and by adopting coercive methods. Opposite parties be further directed not to disconnect his electricity connection and compensation of Rs.10,000/- be also awarded to him for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss by the opposite parties to him.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that a domestic electric connection has been installed in his name bearing Account No.DF 33/553 and he is using the electricity connection, paying its bills etc. regularly, nothing is outstanding against him and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties.  He has next pleaded that the opposite parties issued notice bearing letter no.478 dated 21.3.2017 for Rs.75,629/- wherein it has been alleged that his meter was checked in ME Lab on 15.03.2017 and reading of the meter was found as 19163, whereas  his bill has been prepared for the reading 9399 and demand of Rs.75,629/- i.e. for 9770 units has been raised. Actually, old meter installed in his house was replaced with new electric meter was installed due to MCO. Neither the meter was removed in his presence, nor the same was packed in a Card Board Box and even no notice was issued to him before checking the meter in the ME Lab. No alleged checking report was got signed from him. The old meter was giving correct meter reading and he has paid upto date bills. On receipt of the illegal notice in question he approached the opposite party no.3 and requested him to withdraw the notice in question, nor his old meter was checked in his presence, nor any notice was issued to him before checking of removed meter in ME Lab but the opposite party no.3 did not pay any heed to his request. The demand of the opposite parties is highly illegal, arbitrary, against rules and instructions of the PSPCL, totally unbelievable and improbable. The notice is liable to be withdrawn. Thus, there is deficiency 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 by taking the preliminary objections that the demand of Rs.75,629/- vide notice dated 21.03.2017 raised by the opposite parties is a legal and genuine demand as it is based on the actual consumption of the complainant; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed some material facts and the complainant has filed a false, frivolous complaint and having no merits, be dismissed with costs. On merits, it was submitted that  earlier the old electric meter was running in the house of the complainant which was changed in routine in Jan, 2017 vide M.C.O. No.1824 Sr.No.174 dated 17.01.2017 by the opposite party no.3 in the presence of the complainant and new electric meter was installed in the premises of the complainant. The old electric meter of the complainant was changed in the presence of the complainant and was properly wrapped and packed in a Cardboard box by the J.E. The complainant also signed on the wrapped and packed cardboard box and also on the M.C.O. Then the old meter of the complainant was sent to the M.E. Lab Batala vide Challan No.81 dated 15.03.2017 and it was checked by the S.D.O. M.E.Lab Batala in the presence of XEN Enforcement Amritsar and it was found that the meter reading on the electric meter of the complainant was 19163 and during audit it is found that the complainant has paid the electricity chartges only upto  9399 consumed units. So, the complainant has not paid the differences of 9770 consumed units which amounts to Rs.75,629/-. Then the opposite party no.3 issued a notice bearing letter No.478 dated 21.03.2017 to the complainant to deposit Rs.75,629/- within 7 days from the receipt of the notice which were on account of the difference of consumed units. The complainant inspite of depositing the said amount, filed the present complaint before this Hon’ble Forum. So, it is very much clear that the amount of Rs.75,629/- were on account of consumed units for which the complainant is liable to pay. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.

5.       Sh.Nishan Singh, S.D.O. of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and of Sh.Sumit Saini S.D.O. Ex.OP-6,  alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 and Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence.

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 (in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We observe that the complainant had been quite a long time consumer of the opposite party service providers/corporation being the valid beneficiary of the A/c # DF 33/ 553 DS Connection in his name, at his family residence. He has filed the instant complaint for statutory redressal of his grievance caused on account of receipt of an excessive consumption Notice Memo dated 21.03.2017 for Rs.75,629/- (Ex.C2) upon Lab Testing of his old Meter alleging its reading as: 19163 but charged for a reading of: 9399 and thus short charged for 9770 units assessed @ Rs. 75,629/- and further followed by successive threats of disconnection by the opposite party Corporation. The complainant reported the matter to the related SDO about the defective billing and he was further burdened with an additional Bill for Rs.80,820/-. The evidentiary affidavit along with the affidavit (Ex.C1) and other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 as produced by the complainant satisfactorily and sufficiently prove the complaint-raised allegations.

7.       However, upon appearance, the OP service providers have somehow, deposed (Affidavits Ex.OP1) implying thereby that the Meter was not defective but had been short-charged and the left-out amount is presently being recovered vide the Bill raised/charged for the correct consumption i.e., for Rs.80,820/-.

8.       We are certainly not convinced as to how the non-defective Meter was not first charged for the correct reading display as was read out for the correct consumption and subsequent billing etc. Further, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party service providers/corporation have acted in an arbitrary and unauthorized illegal manner in the present case and thus the present complainant shall not be liable to pay the same as his actual consumption. Somehow, we find that the impugned demands as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the levied charges by the opposite party corporation has not been a matter of routine and also not in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per their own Sales & Distribution of Electricity Rules & Regulations and the details were neither detailed out in the impugned Bill nor any pre-notice was served, as requisite.

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the opposite party SDO to recall and set-aside the impugned Bill (in question)  besides to pay him an aggregate amount of Rs 3,000/- as cost and compensation (for the harassment and financial expense caused by the instant forced upon litigation) within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid. In the meantime, the complainant shall however remain liable to pay all his current and future consumption charges for his actual consumption on regular basis. The amount deposited if any by the complainant is directed to be refunded by the OP to the complainant.

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

                                                                      (Naveen Puri)

                                                                             President

ANNOUNCED:                                         (Jagdeep Kaur)

April 09, 2018.                                                  Member

*MK*