Complainant Tarlok Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to withdraw their impugned demand raised vide bill dated 6.9.2014 and to set aside/quash the said bill. He has further claimed Rs.12,000/- which were received by the opposite parties from the complainant illegally. He has also claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by him all in the interest of justice.  

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he had installed an electric connection bearing A/C No.G-49PF-361612M in his house for domestic purpose and had paid the energy charges to the opposite parties regularly without any default. Complainant had stated that opposite parties have issued a bill dated 13.5.2014 amounting to Rs.736/- which was paid by him. He has further stated that opposite parties have again issued a bill dated 12.7.2014 amounting to Rs.30,259/- in which they have raised a demand of Rs.27,800/-. Complainant has stated that the said bill is illegal, null & void and nothing was due against him. Complainant has further stated that opposite parties have never issued any notice before raising the impugned demand. Complainant has also stated that after receiving the impugned bill he approached the opposite party no.3 and asked them as to why the said huge amount of Rs.27,800/- raised from him as nothing was due against him. Complainant has further stated that opposite parties told him that if he will deposit Rs.10,000/- then his connection will not be disconnected and matter will be sought amicably. Complainant has also stated that he remained mum with the hope that impugned demand may be quashed by the opposite parties but he was stunned when he received the bill dated 6.9.2014 amounting to Rs.31,842/- in which they have raised a demand of Rs.31,710/-. After receiving the bill in question complainant immediately approached the opposite party no.3 but they refused to admit the claim of the complainant and putting off the matter with one pretext or the other. Complainant has stated that opposite parties have deducted Rs.10,000/- which was already paid by him but amount of Rs.21,710/- remained left against him. Complainant was allured by the opposite parties that if he deposited Rs.2,000/- with them then demand of Rs.21,710/- will be satisfied. On the allurement of the opposite parties he deposited Rs.2,000/- with the opposite parties but after it opposite parties have refused to admit the claim of the complainant and threatened him that they will disconnect his electric connection if he will not deposit the impugned amount, hence this complaint. 

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply stating therein that the bill dated 12.7.2014 issued to the complainant was not illegal, null & void. It was stated that complainant in his pleadings has not mentioned that he approached the opposite parties and deposited Rs.120/- for checking of his meter. It was also stated that the meter of the complainant was checked in the M.E.Lab. as per rules. Complainant has also given his consent that he has no objection if his meter was checked in his absence and during the checking the meter of the complainant was found OK. It was also stated that bill issued to the complainant as per the consumption of the units consumed by him. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the opposite parties have prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.        

4. Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
5. Concerned S.D.O. of the opposite parties had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and counsel for the opposite parties had also tendered into evidence copy of consent letter Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

7. Complainant has argued that opposite parties issued a bill dated 12.7.2014 to the complainant amounting to Rs.30,259/- in which the opposite parties have illegally slapped the amount of Rs.27,800/- and this bill is totally illegal, null and void and the demand of the opposite parties is without any notice. Infact as at no point of time the complainant has consumed such high and excessive energy. The complainant received the next bill dated 6.9.2014 which was amounting to Rs.31,842/- in which the amount of Rs.31,710/- was inserted. The complainant approached the opposite party no.3 to withdraw the impugned demand. The opposite party no.3 has deducted the amount of Rs.10,000/- already paid by the complainant and then the amount remained left Rs.21,710/-, which is disputed one. The opposite party no.3 asked to deposit Rs.2,000/- and allured the complainant that the impugned demand of Rs.21,710/- would be satisfied and the complainant deposited the same. Inspite of that, the opposite parties later on refused to admit the claim of the complainant. 
8. On the other hand the opposite parties have argued that the alleged bill dated 12.7.2014 was as per the consumption of the units consumed by the complainant. The meter of the complainant was checked as per rules. The complainant had given consent that if the meter was checked in the absence of complainant and then he has no objection. The meter was checked accordingly in the M.E.Lab and was found that meter was OK and there is no deficiency on behalf of opposite parties.
9. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. The opposite parties have not filed M.E.Lab. report in their evidence. Even no affidavit has been produced by the opposite party of M.E.Lab. S.D.O. who conducted checking of the meter. Complainant has every right to know what he is paying and why he is paying. Affidavit of S.D.O. Gurnam Singh cannot be believed in the absence of M.E.Lab. report on record which despite being in their possession but even then opposite parties have not filed on record. Even the consent letter which is Ex.OP-2 on the file seems to be false as the signatures do not tally with the signatures on the complaint. Even if meter is alleged to be found OK what effort was made by the opposite parties to know of the reason for charge excessive consumption bill.
10. By now, it has become settled proposition of law that the opposite parties are required to bring on record cogent and convincing evidence to prove its version but no such evidence has been placed on file by the opposite parties.
11. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly allowed and the impugned demand of the opposite parties in bill dated 12.7.2014 in which an amount of Rs.27,800/- was demanded is held illegal, null and void. The opposite parties are restrained to recover the aforesaid amount from the complainant. If the complainant had paid any amount against this bill then it be refunded to the complainant within one month after the receipt of the copy of the order. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 
12. 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)

MAY 4, 2015                                                          Member.

*YP*