Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Joginder Kaur wife of Pritam Singh against opposite parties i.e. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala. and Assistant Executive Engineer, (Division ) PSEB, Kala Sanghian, Kapurthala and also SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board Sub Division Kala Sanghian, District Kapurthala <br /> 2. Brief facts of the complaint lie in a narrow compass. Complainant is having electric connection bearing A/c No. FA58/0462 and she has been paying the electricity bills regularly. The sanctioned load of the abovesaid connection was 1.80 KW. It is further averred that on 4/9/2008, some officials of the opposite party Board checked the meter in question and found that meter was showing the reading of 74271 units whereas the actual meter reading as per the meter reader was 7470 units. The said officials told the complainant that said meter is showing highly inflated reading and there must be some fault and further they assured the complainant that within few days , they will chang the defective meter. Complainant was shocked to receive memo No. 1588 dated 8/9/2008 for Rs.2,96,981-which includes Rs.2,69,983/- as SOP charges and Rs.26,998/- as ED charges which is wrong and arbitrary and against the provisions of the Electricity Act. She approached opposite parties and requested them to rectify the amount of impunged memo and to change the defective meter but opposite parties instead of listening her, threatened her to deposit the amount otherwise her connection would be disconnected. Thus there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties against which she is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared, controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted her claim. It is admitted that sanctioned load of the complainant is 1.80 KW.. It is further contended that on 4/9/2008 officers of enforcement Jalandhar II checked the connection of the complainant and detected that electric meter of the complainant was showing the reading as 74271. As per the reading of the meter reader, a bill was sent to the complainant at the reading of 7470 units from <br /> 16-5-08 to 16-7-08. Hence as per the new reading of the meter, complainant consumed 66771 units . On the basis of said checking, a notice No.1588 dated 8/9/2008 was sent to the complainant vide which demand of Rs.2,96,981/- was made as per consumption of 66771 units of electricity by the complainant. Complainant had not challenged accuracy of the meter. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. <br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to C8.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R14.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the p[arties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Learned counsel for complainant has argued that complainant is having electric connection under DS category with sanctioned load of 1.80 KW only and is paying Rs.400-500 for every two months since long. It has been further argued that complainant received memo NO.1588 dated 8/9/2008 in which she was asked to deposit Rs.2,96,981/- for 66771 units on account of checking carried out by Enforcement Unit of opposite party PSEB for two months only which is quite illegal and shows deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice committed on the part of opposite parties which has caused great mental agony and harassment to the complainant.<br /> On the other hand counsel for opposite parties has argued that on 4/9/2008 officers of Enforcement, Jalandhar came to check the connection of the complainant and noticed that reading of the meter was 74271 units whereas the bill on the basis of reading recorded by the meter reader from 16.5.2008 to 16.7.2008 was 7470 units an the bill was earlier sent to the complainant accordingly. . Memo Ex.C6 was sent to the complainant for the payment of Rs.2,96,981/- It is further argued that complainant did not challenge the accuracy of the meter, so there is no unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as the amount in dispute has been charged as per actual consumption of electricity consumed by the complainant.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties.. Admittedly complainant is having sanctioned load of 1.80 KW and is using electricity supply for her domestic use, And as per the record it is found that electric meter stands installed since 28/2/2000 at the premises of the complainant and has been rightly functioning and recording average consumption not exceeding 200 units bi-monthly. The bill dated 4/8/2008 shows reading on the meter recorded by the meter reader for the period 16/5/2008 to 16/7/2008 was 7470 units and thereafter on checking by Enforcement Unit of the opposite parties on 4/9/2008 the reading on the meter was noticed as 74271 units and accordingly demand of Rs. 2,96,981/- was raised by the opposite parties vide memo No.1588 dated 8/9/2008 Ex.C6 on account of consumption of electricity to the extent of 66771 units for the period from 16/7/2008 to 4/9/2008 which is contrary to average consumption recorded during the past since the installation of meter and is extremely on the higher side appears to be wrong and illegal and is not possible at all. The Enforcement Unit in the checking report vide Ex.R14 has pointed out that the functioning of the meter could not be checked at site due to the fact that supply was not available at that time and has further pointed out that as per the ledger record, the reading of the meter was 7470 units and the actual reading at the time of inspection was 74271 units accordingly billing of difference of 66771 units could not be done , on this account Enforcement Unit has recommended disciplinary action against the concerned meter reader. <br /> Under these circumstances either the functioning and accuracy of the meter is not genuine one or the concerned meter reader has been recording bogus readings, the complainant therefore, cannot be forced for making payment of this huge amount on the basis of this abnormal consumption. The opposite party No.1 Chairman PSEB, Patiala is at liberty to investigate the matter to initiate the disciplinary action against the concerned meter reader and erring officers.<br /> 8. In this case this Forum has already restrained the opposite parties not to disconnect the meter in question on 12/9/2008 and also have confirmed the order dated 12/9/2008 after hearing counsel of both the parties because the reading of the meter recorded on 4/9/2008 appears to be misreading of the digits in the meter in question or faulty function of the meter So in the fairness of justice, we quash the demand of opposite parties to the tune of Rs.2,96,981/- raised vide memo No.1588 dated 8/9/2008 Ex.C6 with the direction that present meter should be replaced within 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order. We further award monetary compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony and physical harassment for deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties besides Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses to be paid within one month from the receipt of copy of this order. We have already restrained the opposite parties not to disconnect the meter in question on 12.9.2008 and also have confirmed the order dated 12/9/2008 after hearing counsel of both the parties because the reading of the meter recorded on 4/9/2008 appears to be misreading of the digits in the meter in question or faulty function of the meter.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : Shashi Narang Gulshan Prahar Paramjit Singh<br /> 22.1.2009 Member Member President.