Sh.Wilson Masih, the present complainant has been the holder of the Domestic Electric Power Connection with Meter # 545887 for the last 10 years paying all his electricity-consumption Bills on regular basis. However, on 19.08.2017 he received an excessive consumption-bill for Rs.40,831/- with Rs.36,469/- slapped as Misc. Charges. The complainant approached the OP1 Sub Div. with request for rectification of the wrongly drawn bill but was told to deposit the amount as his Meter was found tempered with by the OP2 Jr. Engineer who had removed his Meter for checking etc. Further, the Jr. Engineer demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- for an amicable settlement but that was refused by the complainant so the Meter was changed with the New Meter with # 802606 although his previous Meter was also checked as: OKAY by the M.E. Lab. However, the New Meter was not okay and started clocking inadvertently incorrect readings i.e. 12000 unit in 9 months only measured against 17823 units in the last 10 years at the Old Meter. Thus, the complainant reported for checking of the Meter through deposit of Rs.120/- as the requisitioned fee but the related Report has not been delivered to him till filing of the present complaint, in spite of several requests/reminders/grievance at all the OP levels. The complainant having got tired/exhausted and failed in his persuasions to seek justice at the hands of the OP corporation has filed the present complaint seeking/praying for directives to the OP1 SDO to withdraw/set-aside the impugned miscellaneous charges of Rs.36,469/- from the disputed/excessive bill dated 19.08.2017 and instead draw the actual consumption bills upon him and also to pay him a compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation etc. in the interest of justice.

2.       In order to support prosecution of the complaint, it has been accompanied with the duly sworn-out/attested (Ex.CW1/A) affidavit, ii) Copies of Electricity Bills (Ex.C1 to Ex.C6);  iii) Copy of Affidavit (Ex.C7), iv) Copy of Complaints (ExC8 to Ex.C12) and v) Copy of Meter Report (Ex.C13) and vi) Copy of Paper Publication (Ex.C14) + written arguments.           

3.       The titled opposite parties 1 & 3  (represented by the OP1 SDO office) upon summoning appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply with its opening preliminary objection that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands suppressing the true and material facts with no cause of action having ever arisen in his favor and thus the same deserves dismissal with special costs for having harassed the OP corporation and wasted the commission's time. Further, on merits, the OP corporation have admitted the complainant as consumer of the OP for the last 10 years but denied that he has been regularly paying all his consumption bills. Further, the consumption recording Meter was changed and he was billed on average basis and the Meter was changed in June, 2016 by the new Meter and the Bill in October, 2016 was for Rs.55,327/- and not Rs.36,469/- as per the complaint. The OP have denied the para 4 in totality that their J.E. OP2 had asked for Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification etc. Lastly, the OP have sought dismissal of the present complaint and have filed affidavit (Ex.OP1) of its SDO Subhash Chander and Billed Data (Ex.OP2) etc. in support of prosecution of its defense.    

4.       Similarly, the titled opposite party No. 2 (the OP2 Jr. Engineer) upon summoning appeared through his counsel and filed the written reply denying all the Charges as made out through the contents of the present complaint as duly deposed through his duly sworn out attested affidavit Ex.OP2/1.

5.       We have examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ for those ignored to be produced) in order to adjudicate the respective ‘claims’ as put-up by the litigants in the light of arguments by the respective learned counsels.

6.       We observe that the OP corporation's lone pleading justifying the impugned Bills has been that the complainant's Meter was under the process of change and he was being billed on average basis and the enhanced amount in the later bill represents the actual consumption during the period. We find that the OP statement has been itself the one contradictory/self-defeating proposition, otherwise such a vast variation within such a short period could not have been feasible. One of the two figures, either the average or the actual consumption have been wrongly/inadvertently reached/worked out. Moreover, when the Electric Meter was removed for replacement how the actual consumption has been under measure. Further, no evidence of ME Lab Testing along with the results duly supported by the affidavits of the therein posted Technicians have been filed along with the other ones. The Bill has been stated to be charged as per the actual consumption of units but the OP have failed to investigate and bring on record the cause of such high/vast fluctuations in the family's monthly consumption.

7.       Moreover, the OP corporation have not produced any cogent evidence in support of their above pleading that the meter was changed. There's no MCO (Meter Changing Orders), no M.E. Lab Testing of defective Meter, no affidavit/deposition of the Lab Engineer/Technician and also no Past Consumption Records of the complainant and no investigation report(s) etc; and, in the absence of these requisite as well as collateral support in evidence, we are of the considered opinion that all the herein OP pleadings turn out to be bald statements sans legal-acceptance. We further observe that the OP corporation has totally ignored to follow even its own formulated Distribution and Supply Rules while resolving the present dispute and also the prescribed procedures.     

8.       Thus we hold the titled OP corporation on adverse side of the award under the herein applicable statute observing herein that the OP Corporation do still hold the outdated mentality of sovereign authority although its constituent stands changed to that of PSU (Public Sector Unit) like Banks etc and nature too of public utility service industry; But, here the OP have miserably failed in their duty towards the public, in general, and its consumers, in particular. We are certainly not convinced with the clarifications as put forth by the OP Corporation to justify its act of unwarranted inadvertence pertaining to drawing of both the impugned consumption bills upon the complainant.

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party corporation to withdraw the impugned amount of Rs.36,469/- from the related Bill (Ex.C1) and refund the amount deposited if any during the pendency of this complaint besides to pay Rs.5,000/- in lump sum as compensation and cost of the present litigation within 45 days of receipt of the certified copy of these orders otherwise the aggregated awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual realization.

10.      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.

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

                                                          (Naveen Puri)

                                                                President.

ANNOUNCED:                                (R.S.Sukhija)

NOV. 18, 2022.                                         Member.

YP.