Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh. M.S. Brar counsel for the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> DHARAM SINGH PRESIDENT<br /> Dr. Satpal Garg complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to correct the bill by correcting the average and replacing the burnt meter immediately and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties having electric connection bearing Account No. MB 27/0170 under NRS category. The connection is being used for exclusively self employment for clinic. The complainant is paying all the electricity consumption bills regularly as and when received by the complainant and at present nothing on account of consumption charges is due against the complainant. The meter of the complainant was burnt in the month of 5/2007. Employees of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant and asked the complainant to deposit the cost of the meter. The cost of the meter of Rs.775/- was deposited vide receipt No. 228/80750 dated 10.5.2007. The complainant received a bill issued on 8.6.2007 in which average was charged on the basis of the connected load. This bill was prepared of 4112 units for Rs.19.390/- and the same was deposited by the complainant. Meter of the complainant was not changed inspite of the fact that cost of the meter has already been deposited by the complainant. Now the opposite parties again issued the bill on 7.8.2007 for 5907 units showing the bill issued on connected load basis of Rs.27,810/-. This bill is excessive and units charged of 5907 units on the basis of the connected load is also excessive as in the previous bill average was charged of 4112 units on the connected load basis. The bill issued on 7.8.2007 of Rs.27,810/- is excessive and illegal. Meter of the complainant has not been replaced yet an excessive bill is being issued by the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and requested to correct the bill and further to replace the meter immediately but the opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to correct the bill and insisted that this bill if not deposited the connection of the complainant will be disconnected without any notice and also refused to change the meter immediately. The act and conduct of the opposite parties caused great mental tension, harassment to the complainant for which the complainant claims a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21.08.2007 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 reply taking preliminary objections that the connection of the complainant was released for commercial purpose. The complainant is running a big hospital and earning huge amount. So this learned Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try this complaint being commercial connection. The connected load of the complainant is 46.90 KWs. On merits the opposite parties admitted that the payment of the bills is being made as per assessment made and demanded by the PSEB, however this amount is due towards the complainant. It is also admitted that the meter of the complainant was burnt and he deposited Rs.775/- as cost of the meter. The meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No. 103/67009 dated 30.5.2007 effected on 19.9.2007. Due to burnt meter bill on the average basis was charged. The bill was charged on the basis of load factor as per Clause 73.1.2 of Sales Regulations. The connection of the complainant is under NRS tariff. 4112 units charged as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. It is also admitted that bill for the month 8/2007 was sent showing the consumption of 5907 units. The meter of the complainant was burnt and in case of burnt meter as regarding the charging of consumption for the period the meter remained inoperative, average consumption of the last four or six months or the average of the same month of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption, if any, is chargeable. The bill was charged on the basis of consumption recorded of the same month of the previous year i.e. 8/2006 and in the month of 8/2006 the complainant had consumed 5907 units. The average of 5907 units has been charged as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. So there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The full detail and reason for charging 5907 units was also explained to the complainant. The photocopies of the relevant record was also supplied to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. So the complaint be dismissed with heavy 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 receipt dated 10.5.2007 Ex.C-2, bills Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copy of the bill dated 9.12.2007 Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Er. Daljit Singh Assistant Executive Engineer, City Sub Division, PSEB, Faridkot Ex.R-1, certified copies of ledger Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-9, MCO No. 103/67009 dated 30.5.2007 Ex.R-10 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 opposite parties had been deficient in providing service by issuing inflated bill dated 7.8.2007 by charging consumption of 5907 units instead of 4112 units. Complainant have applied for replacement of the burnt meter and have deposited the amount of the meter on 10.5.2007 but still they have not changed the meter. Complainant have suffered mentally and physically. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the opposite parties are charging amount in question on average basis in accordance with the rules and regulations of the PSEB. They have installed new meter vide MCO No. 103/67009 dated 30.5.2007. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the opposite parties had been charging average units consumption of 4112 as meter already stood burnt and could not have been replaced. The opposite parties had been charging average consumption rates on the basis of the connected load. It was 4112 units for Rs.19.390/- which has been deposited by the complainant. The opposite parties without any reason or explanation charged the excessive average units of 5907 units and have issued bill dated 7.8.2007 for payment of Rs.27,810/-. The opposite parties must have changed the meter immediately. It was changed on 19.9.2007 as per MCO Ex.R-10. So it is held that the opposite parties have issued excessive bill of 5907 units instead of 4112 average units. So the opposite parties are held to have been deficient in providing services to the complainant. <br /> 11. 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 bill in dispute dated 7.8.2007 and issue the same on the basis of average consumption of 4112 units instead of 5907 units, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order and the amount, if any, already deposited by the complainant in respect of bill dated 7.8.2007 be adjusted in that bill. No order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 10.4.2008<br />