Complainant Som Nath 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 rectify the bills in question and to recover the actual consumption amount from him, if any, after giving concession of exempted units. Opposite parties be further directed to restrain from disconnecting his electric connection, till the final decision of the complaint. Opposite parties be next directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficiency in service alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has got installed an electric connection bearing Account No.B 12MT 642665A in his house in the name of his brother Sh.Darshan Lal son of Girdhari Lal. Said Darshan Lal had since expired and after his death he is residing in the house where the connection in question is installed, using electricity, paying its bills etc. regularly and as such   he is beneficiary falls under the definition of consumer of the opposite parties. He is a poor labourer and belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. He has a very small house. 200 units PM of the S.C. Community has been exempted by the Govt. of Punjab. His meter has been installed at a common place in Almirah alongwith meters of other inhabitants of the locality since long and as such there is no question of tampering with the meter by him in any manner. He has further pleaded that though his consumption was less than the exempted units, but the opposite parties issued bill in the month of February 2017, in which the opposite parties slapped about Rs.30,000/- without any prior notice and without any reasonable cause or excuse, which is totally wrong, exaggerated, arbitrary much more than the actual consumption made by him. On receipt of illegal bill he approached the opposite party no.3 and requested him to exclude the amount of arrears from the bill and to receive the actual consumption amount after rectification of the bill as he has not used electricity energy and he assured that his bill will be rectified when the bill for next month’s will be prepared. But to his utter surprise, the opposite parties again issued bill dated 19.04.2017 for Rs.35,330/- in which Rs.26,160/-, Rs.5058/- and Rs.506/- had been added under head of Arrear of Current year and Rs.120/- as adjustment and remaining amount of bill is also highly excessive and much more than the actual consumption made by him. On receipt of illegal bill dated 19.04.2017, he again approached the opposite party no.3 and requested him to rectify the bill but of no use. The demand of the opposite parties without any checking and notice is illegal, against the rules and not binding upon him and 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 taking the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hand and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that account no.MT 64/2665 is sanctioned in the name of Darshan Lal. Actually, the electric meter was changed by the opposite parties in the month of July, 2015 as per the policy of the opposite parties. The opposite parties changed the electric meter of the complainant and installed the computerized meter, since then the bill of complainant had prepared on ‘F’ Code on average basis upto 18.10.2016. As per the verification of the JE and request of the consumer, the particulars of the meter were entered in the SAP system on 19.2.2017 and then the bill was prepared on actual consumption. At that time the actual reading of the meter was 5022 units, hence the opposite parties demanded the amount of Rs.30,780/- after deducting the already paid charges Rs.3178/- from the total amount of Rs.33,957/-. The complainant was not paying the bill regularly. The amount demanded by the opposite parties from the complainant vide bill of February, 2017 is the actual consumption charges of the complainant; the present complaint is not maintainable as the amount in dispute is the unpaid energy charges of the complainant. The complainant is habitual defaulter and has not made any payment after October, 2016, so the amount demanded by the opposite parties is legal and genuine and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Harman Preet Singh Gill S.D.O.Ex.OP-1, alongwith other document Ex.OP2 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 find that the electric connection A/c # B12MT642665A has been in the name of the complainant’s brother Darshan Lal (since demised) and he being the lawful resident owner occupant of the premises and also a ‘beneficiary’ has been a consumer of the OP service providers/corporation and further claims to have been paying his consumption Bills on regular basis. However, on 19.04.2017 the OP Corporation did issue him an excessive Bill for Rs.35,330/- allegedly on arbitrary basis for an unusual consumption of 5000 units in spite of his being eligible for 200 free units every month being member of SC and BPL category and thus prompted the present complaint. The complainant has also objected to its constituting factors like current year arrears and misc. other expenses etc. Further, instead of explaining/ moderating the Bill the OP3 SDO office still enhanced it every month so as to reach Rs.40120/- on 18.06.2017 coupled with threats of disconnection and that has been on the verge of execution shortly, anytime hereinafter.

7.       However, we proceed ahead to examine the complaint on its issues of merit. We find that the complainant has claimed to have received the impugned Bill Ex.C1 amounting to Rs.35330/- dated 19.04.2017 succeeded by others including those Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 for Rs.36,010/- & Rs.40,120/- dated 21.08.2017 and 19.06.2017, respectively; but have failed to produce any previous Bill(s) with payment receipts evidencing regular payment of consumption charges, in the past. The produced Receipts Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 are for small petty amounts and not accompanied by the related Bills to prove lesser amounts and regular up to date payments etc. Whereas, on the other hand the OP Corporation through its affidavit Ex.OP1 has deposed and also proved through Ex.OP2 the consumption Bill that there has been an outstanding of Rs 30,780/- being the receivable arrears of the drawn Bills and that negates the complainant’s claims. Here, also the complainant has failed to produce any ‘evidence’ of having paid the previously drawn Bills on different dates.

8.       The opposite party corporation (service providers) have refuted all the allegations vide its written statement and has further deposed (vide affidavit Ex.OP1) of the consumer’s liability to pay the consumption Bills regularly whereas the present complainant has not paid the consumption Bills for quite some time except the petty amounts deposited as part payments, here and there. We do somewhat find the instant explanation as made out by the opposite party service providers/corporation to be quite satisfactory and legally valid.

9.       In the light of the all above, we find no actionable merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.

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)

March, 12 2018.                                           Member                      

*MK*