Surinder Pal Mahajan, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the PSPCL (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that an electric connection bearing A/c No.G 62CF241683 X has been installed in his name and he is using the electricity and paying its bills etc. regularly, nothing is outstanding against him and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. The sanctioned and existing load of complainant is 3.98 KW. Status of meter is also "Ok". Average bimonthly consumption/bill of complainant is Rs.1000/- to 1200/-. It was alleged that the opposite parties issued bill dated 05.10.2020 for Rs.18,910/- payable by due date. In this bill total consumption has been shown as 886 Units, which is totally wrong. The consumption shown in the bill is highly excessive, exorbitant. He never consumed electricity energy to this extent. The bill in question is totally illegal, much more than the actual consumption made by him and the same is liable to be rectified. It is further alleged that he approached the opposite party no.3 and requested him to rectify his bill and to receive actual consumption charges on basis consumption made in the previous months or the months of preceding year, as he never consumed electricity energy to such an extent for which the bill in dispute has been issued to him. But opposite party no.3flatly refused to listen him and threatened to recover the amount forcibly by adopting coercive methods, and to disconnect his connection, if the amount is not paid. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to rectify the bill in dispute and to receive actual consumption charges on the basis of consumption of the similar months of preceding year and not to recover amount mentioned in the bill in dispute illegally, forcibly and by adopting coercive methods. It is further prayed that the opposite parties be kindly be restrained from disconnecting the electricity connection of the complainant. The complainant may kindly be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite parties to him due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and he has got no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complainant has filed a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint by concealing the true facts from this Hon’ble Commission and as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs, that the complainant has filed the present complaint with sole motive to avoid payment of the electricity charges legally and rightly demanded by the respondents for the electricity consumed by him. Fact of matter is that in the month of 2/2020 Code of meter of complainant became “D” meter Reading of consumer on 10/2019 was 40914 and new reading in12/2019 was also 40914. Sanctioned load of complainant is 3.98 KW. The bill dated 12/2020, code of the meter of complainant became “O” but the same was prepared of Zero reading. It is pleaded that reading in the Bill for 10/2019 of complainant was entered 40908-40914 i.e. 6 Units. Similarly in the bill of 08/2019 reading was recorded as 40898-40908 i.e. 10 Units. Account of the complainant was overhauled by internal auditor Sub Urban Pathankot vide Memo No. HM No. 24 dated 24.08.2020. It is further pleaded that due to “D” code of the meter MCO No. 39/620 was affected on 05.03.2020 and meter of the complainant was replaced. Due to defect in the meter, the bill in question has been prepared on the average basis of consumption made by the complainant in the months of previous year, which is correct. It is further pleaded that the complainant is fully aware about this fact, but he has filed the present complaint by concealing all the above mentioned facts.

          On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with special costs.

4.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinder Pal Mahajan (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3.

5.       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Bains Addl.S.D.O Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3.

6.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

7.       Written arguments not filed by both the parties.

8.       Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is consumer of opposite parties with existing load of 3.98 KW and status of meter as "OK". The opposite parties illegally and unlawfully had sent bill dated 05.10.2020 for Rs.18,910/- without any basis and threatened to disconnect the connection which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9.  On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has argued that in the month of 02/2020 meter code of complainant became "D" and meter reading of consumer on 10/2019 was 40914 and new reading on 12/2019 was also 40914. Sanctioned load of the complainant is 3.98 KW. In the bill dated 12/2020 the code of the meter of the complainant became "O" and the same was prepared of Zero reading. The reading in the bill for 10/2020 of the complainant was entered as 6 units, bill of 08/2019 reading was of 10 units as such account of the complainant was overhauled by the internal auditor Sub Urban Pathankot and accordingly as per memo No.HM No.24 dated 24.08.2020 amount of Rs.11,346/- was due. It is further argued that due to "D" code of the meter MCO was issued and bill was issued on average basis. It is further argued by the counsel for the opposite parties that as per commercial circular No.21/2022 out of the total due amount of Rs.18,910/-, the complainant has been given exemption of Rs.6514/- and now the total payable amount is Rs.11,396/- including current bill and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. It is admitted fact that complainant is having electricity connection No. G 62CF241683 X installed at his house. It is further admitted fact that opposite parties had issued bill Ex.C1 as per which amount of Rs.18,910/- has been shown payable by the complainant. It is further admitted fact and rather admitted by the opposite parties vide statement dated 28.10.2022 that the complainant given exemption of Rs.6514/- and only dispute is regarding Rs.11,346/- charged as sundry charges in the bill in question. The contention of the Ld. counsel for the opposite parties is that since the meter of the complainant was defective as such the said charges as mentioned in the bill Ex.C1 are on average basis. However, perusal of checking report Ex.OP2 shows that the said checking of the meter has been carried out by the opposite parties in the absence of the complainant as such complainant is not bound by said checking of the meter. Moreover, a separate notice was required to be issued by the opposite parties to the complainant as per Electricity Supply Code 2014, 30.1.2. But opposite parties fails to do so. Accordingly, complainant has fully proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and an amount of Rs.11,346/- charged in bill dated 05.10.2020 as sundry charges is set aside and it is further directed to the opposite parties that 20% deposited by the complainant in compliance of order dated 30.10.2020 be adjusted in the future bill of the complainant. No order as to costs.

11.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

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

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                            President   

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Aug. 14 2023                                                Member

*YP*