Amit Kumar complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the inflated, excessive and illegal bill of Rs.56,480/- on the basis of wrong consumption shown in the bill for 15067 units for the month of 4/2007 and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having a electric connection small power category bearing account No. SP-53/0114 with a sanctioned load of 19.88 KWs for running a saw mill for his exclusive self employment. The complainant is paying all the electricity consumption bills as and when received by the complainant. The consumption of the complainant in the months of 6/06 is 1653 units, in 7/06 is 2337 units, in 8/06 is 1703 units, in 9/06 is 1140 units, in 10/06 is 1663 units, in 11/06 is 1986 units, in 12/06 is 2342 units, in 1/07 is 1898 units, in 2/07 is 2474 units and in 3/07 is 1857 units. The complainant has received the bills for the month of 4/07 and astonished to see that a bill for 15067 units worth Rs. 56,480/- has been issued which is quite illegal, inflated and excessive. After that the complainant moved an application to the opposite party No. 1 thereby informing him regarding wrong and excessive reading given by the meter and regarding the meter becoming dead. At this the meter was checked by the J.E. of the office of the opposite party No. 2 on 17/4/2007 and reported that meter in dead stop due to defect. It is pertinent to mention that the excessive reading is the result of the defect in the meter which makes a jump in the reading and this fact can be very well ascertain by down reading the date of the meter as the meter installed is an electronic meter. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 so many times with the request to correct the bill as per actual ave reading and withdraw the excessive and wrong bill but the opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to agree with the complainant rather threatened to disconnect the connection if the bill as issued is not deposited which amounts to clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is further mention that if whole of the load of the connection runs 24 hours without any interuption even then the alleged consumption cannot come out of 15067 units per month. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which the complainant claims a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties, besides above the complainant also claims a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses from the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 25/4/2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. M.S.Brar Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objection that the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. If the complainant has any grievance regarding correctness of the working of the meter, he could conveniently challenge the working of the meter and correctness of the energy bill. The complainant having failed to adopt this course so he is not entitled for any relief. On merits the opposite parties admitted the account number and sanctioned load of the complainant. But it is wrong that the complainant is running the saw mill for his self employment rather he is running the same for gaining profits. A number of workers are employed by the complainant for carrying on the business. So the present complaint is not maintainable. There is a great variation in consumption as mention in the complaint. It is admitted that the bill for the month of 4/07 has been prepared for 15067 units but it has been prepared on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the meter which is installed in the premises of the complainant. Complainant has never challenged the working of the meter earlier before receipt of the bill in question. If any defect in the meter the same could have been pointed out by the complainant and the meter would have been checked there and then, but the complainant willfully did not inform the opposite parties. The bill in question is not inflated or excessive. The opposite parties undertake to replace the meter and get it checked from the ME Lab and the parties should be directed to be bound by the checking of the ME Lab. If the working of the meter is found beyond permissible limits then the accounts of the complainant would be overhauled as per instructions of the Board and if the working of the meter is found to be correct, then the complainant will be bound to make payment of the bill in question without any demur. The meter of the complainant was checked by the JE concerned on the application of the complainant dated 17/4/2007 who reported that the meter does not flicker on putting the load which shows that the meter has become defective but the actual defect in the meter can be ascertained only on internal checking of the meter in the ME Lab. No date can be deloaded from the meter in question as it is a simple electronic meter. As the complainant did not challenge the working of the meter nor he challenged the amount of the bill in question therefore his connection is liable to be disconnected but due stay order of the Hon'ble Forum his connection is not liable to be disconnected till the final decision of the complaint. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The plea of the complainant that if the connection is run on full load without any interuption even then the consumption cannot be of 15056 units is quite hollow as there are more than one reason for higher consumption in one month. It is also possible that previously the complainant with the connivance of certain unscrupulous officials of the PSEB got less consumption recorded in the previous months and ultimately actual consumption came to be recorded which is sought to be dubbed being incorrect. There is no question of any mental tension and harassment to the complainant and he is not entitled for any compensation. So the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of letter dated 17/4/2007 Ex.C-2, copies of bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-12 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence afffidavit of Sadhu Singh AEE Sub Urban Sub Division, PSEB, Kotkapura Ex.R-1, affidait of Jarnail Singh Meter Reader Ex.R-2, meter reading record Ex.R-3 and closed their evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is not liable to make payment of inflated, excessive and illegal bill of Rs.56,480/- on the basis of the wrong consumption shown in the bill for 15067 units for the month of April, 2007. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the complainant is bound to make payment to the above noted amount which is based on the actual reading recorded by the opposite parties with regard to consumption of the electricity by the complainant. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the complainant had been making representation to the opposite parties since the very beginning with regard to jumping of the reading of the meter suddenly. In this respect application Ex.C-2 was moved by the complainant to the opposite parties on 17/4/2007. He made mention that the reading in the meter on 24/3/2007 was 86049. On 24/2/2007 the reading was 70982. 15,000 units were never consumed by the complainant. On 17/4/2007 the meter reading still was 86049 so meter was required to be got corrected and bill was reqested to be amended for actual payment of the consumed electricity. On 17/4/2007 Mohinder Singh JE was ordered to check the meter. He found seals to be correct in the meter. The meter does nsot flicker on putting it on the load. So meter was found to be faulty. <br /> 11. From perusal of the bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-12 it is made out that the complainant has never consumed electricity more than 2474 units at the most. Sometimes he had been consuming 1140 units. Even after change of the meter he has not consumed such a huge number of units. At the time of recording of the excessive reading the meter has been shown to be defective in meter blank book Ex.R-3. <br /> 12. Since the meter is defective so its rechecking in the ME Lab is not helpful to the opposite parties. Opposite parties themselve could satisfy the complainant with regard to jumping of the meter to record excessive reading. They have not done so. In these circumstances opposite parties had been deficient in providing service to the complainant. <br /> 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the impugned bill for the month of April, 2007 with regard to making of payment of Rs. 56,480/- from the complainant, within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. However the opposite parties can receive amount with regard to consumption of 2000 units for the month of April, 2007 out of the above noted disputed amount. There is no order as to costs. If any, amount already deposited by the complainant with regard to impugned bill dated 15/4/2007 for Rs.56,480/-, the same be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in the subsequent bills. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 13/11/2007<br /> <br /> (Smt. D.K.Khosa) (Dharam Singh)<br /> Member President <br />