Brief facts of the complaint are that electric connection bearing A/C No. GC 12/16 is running in the name of the complainant under NRS category and complainant is having business of Hotel and restaurant in the premises where the electric connection is installed for earning her livelihood and is paying the electricity bills regularly is consumer of the opposite parties. It has been further argued that whenever complainant or her employees did not entertain the employees of the PSEB, the officials of the opposite party PSEB has harassed complainant by way of imposing false and illegal penalty while sending letter No. 563 dated 12/5/2009 raising illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs.69826/- with bad intention and ill will towards complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties who appeared through counsel and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. On merits facts mentioned in the complaint have been emphatically denied.<br /> 3. In support of her version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to C3.<br /> 4. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R8.<br /> 5. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Counsel for the complainant has argued that electric connection bearing A/C No. GC 12/16 is running in the name of the complainant under NRS category and complainant is having business of Hotel and restaurant in the premises where the electric connection is installed for earning her livelihood and is paying the electricity bills regularly is consumer of the opposite parties. It has been further argued that whenever complainant or her employees did not entertain the employees of the PSEB, the officials of the opposite party PSEB has harassed complainant by way of imposing false and illegal penalty while sending letter No. 563 dated 12/5/2009 raising illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs.69826/- with bad intention and ill will towards complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.<br /> On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has raised certain preliminary objections that since the complainant is running the electric connection for commercial purpose while running a hotel and restaurant business and has employed dozens of employees in her hotel and as such complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. It was further argued by learned counsel for the opposite parties that complainant got enhanced load of her electric connection to the extent of 129.5 KW and as it was standing instruction of the department meter No. 148342 with ratio 200/5 was installed and an entry in this respect was made in M.E. II register at page No.80, item No.11534 and C.T. with ratio 200/5, No. P 18469, P 18472 was installed vide M.E. II register, page No. 90, item No.11537. The meter was burnt and same was changed on 11/5/2008, vide M.C.O No.33/54727 dated 1/12/2008. The C.T. with ratio 200/5 remained unchanged and burnt meter No. 148342 was replaced vide new meter No. 04211474 with ratio 100/5. Now as per rules, if C.T. and meter ratio are the same then there is no need to apply multiplying factor but if meter ratio and C.T. ratio are different then multiplying factor is calculated as C.T. ratio/meter ratio and same has to be applied with kwh consumption. Since new mter with ratio 100/5 was installed and C.Ts having ratio 200/5 remained unchanged and later on audit party pointed out to enhance consumption for the period for 1/09 to 4/09 after applying multiple factors of two and enhancing consumption thereby complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.69826 vide memo NO.563 dated 12/5/2009 in which relevant detail of charges was mentioned and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. As per the record, electric connection bearing A/c No.GC 12/16 running under NRS category for hotel and restaurant business which is a source of livelihood for the complainant. As per Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. In order to prove their case, opposite parties have produced affidavit of Er.Swaran Singh Sr.XEN City Division, Kapurthala confirming the facts that on enhancing load of the electric connection of the complainant to the extent of 129.5 KW, meter No. 148342 with C.T. ratio 200/5 was installed at the premises of the complainant and requisite entry to this effect stands recorded in the ME II register at page No.89, item NO.11534 and C.Ts. with ratio 200/5 bearing NO. P18469 and P 18472 was also installed alongwith the meter vide ME II register at page No.90, item NO.11537. This meter was burnt and same was changed on 11/12/2008, vide M.C.O No.33/54727 dated 1/12/2008. whereas the C.Ts. with ratio 200/5 remained unchanged and burnt meter No. 148342 was replaced vide new meter No. 04211474 with ratio 100/5. Ex.R1 is the copy of ME II register at Sr. No.11534. Ex.R2 is the copy of ME II register at Sr. No.11537. Ex.R3 is the copy of MCO No.33/54727 dated 1/12/2008 vide which meter was changed on 11/12/08. Ex.R5 is the copy of supplementary bill raised to the complainant . Ex.R6 and R7 are consumption data of the complainant. It is obvious that in order to assess the exact kwh energy consumed by the consumer as and when where the metering equipment alongwith CT units are installed the consumption recorded by the meter is to be multiplied with the relevant factor calculated as ratio of CT unit divided by the ratio of meter. And while examining the record, it is concluded that by certain omissions and commissions of the opposite parties , in the first instance the opposite parties could not supply accurate amount of the bills regarding the consumption of electricity by the complainant for the period 1/09 to 4/09 and when this fact came to the notice of opposite parties for having not applying the multiplying factor of the quality ratio of 100/5 of newly installed meter, the account of the complainant was rightly overhauled while enhancing the consumption for the period 1/09 to 4/09 with appropriate factor. Accordingly detailed memo NO.563 dated 12/5/09 alongwith supplementary bill sent to the complainant for Rs.69826/- is quite genuine and found to be valid .<br /> In view of our above discussion, complaint is being without merit and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs<br /> Let certified copies of order be supplied to the parties without delay and file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh<br /> 20.8.2009 Member Member President.