Present complaint under Section 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Kashmira Singh against opposite parties i.e. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Sr. Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Division, PSEB Kapurthala and also S.D.O. City Sub Division No.2, PSEB, Kapurthala.<br /> 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is consumer of the opposite parties having electric connection bearing A/c No. AC33/0843Y with City Sub Division No.2 which is installed at his Chamber in District Courts. He has been paying the bills regularly and nothing is due against him. He has installed only one fan in his Chamber and is used to sit in his chamber from 10 AM to 4 PM in working days only. It is further alleged that in the first week of September 2008 he noticed that his meter was jumping without any load. So he m0oved an application dated 10/9/2008 to the opposite party NO.2 for installing correct meter.. He moved another application to replace his faulty meter in October but no action was taken by the opposite party PSEB. He was surprised to receive bill dated 21/11/2008 showing consumption of 190 units showing old reading as 200 recorded on 25/8/2008 and new reading as 390 recorded on 25/10/2008. This bill was for Rs.980 and payable upto 8/12/2008 and surcharge of Rs.87/- if not paid in time and total bill was for Rs.1067/- and complainant filed a complaint before this Forum which was accepted by the Forum vide order dated 19/3/2009. It is further alleged that again complainant received a bill dated 20/1/2009 for consumption of 761 units for Rs.5264/- which is illegal and arbitrary in contravention of instructions of PSEB Complainant approached office of opposite parties and requested them to correct the bill as the functioning of meter appears to be doubtful because the consumption is extremely on the higher side, but opposite parties failed to rectify the bill rather they threatened him to disconnect his connection. Hence this is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties against which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written statement. A preliminary objection has been raised that complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits it is denied that complainant moved any application for change of his meter. The bill dated 20/1/2009 was sent to the complainant as per actual consumption . Other allegations made in the complaint have been emphatically denied.<br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to C5.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 and copy of Sales Regulations Ex.R2.<br /> Counsel for the complainant has argued on the basis of facts alleged in the complaint that bill dated 20/1/2009 relates to the consumption of 761 units of same meter which is extremely on the higher side and should be revised,. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties argued on the basis of written statement indicating that the removed meter was replaced in the presence of complainant on 11/4/2009 has duly been sealed by the officials of opposite party No.2 but the complainant refused to sign the MCO .<br /> 6. The main plank of the case is that complainant is consumer of the opposite parties having electric connection bearing A/c No. AC33/0843Y installed in his name under NRS category having sanctioned load of 0.52 KW and has been paying the bills regularly. . It is also not disputed that complainant received bill dated 1/08, 3/08, 5/08 on the basis of minimum consumption charges from the opposite parties. Complainant received bill dated 20/9/2008 relating to the period 25/6/2008 to 25/8/2008 for 11 units which was for Rs.150/- and thereafter bill dated 21/11/2008 was slapped upon the complainant for Rs.980/- was for 190 units and vide Ex.C4, complainant has also produced in his evidence bill dated 20/1/2009 for the period 25/10/2008 to 24/12/2008 amounting to Rs.4720/- for 781 units and vide this Forum's order dated 19/3/2009, opposite party was directed to replace the meter in dispute within fortnight and was further ordered to revise the bill dated 21/11/2008 as per directions given in the order and now complainant in his fresh complaint dated 22/4/2009 supported by his affidavit vide Ex.C1 has brought to the notice of the Forum that consumption recorded of 761 units as shown in the bill dated 20/1/2009 relates to the same meter which stands replaced on 11/4/2009 .<br /> So in the fairness of justice we direct the opposite parties that bill dated 20/1/2009 of the complainant may also be revised on the similar guidelines of the order dated 19/3/2009 of this Forum on the basis of consumption data for the preceding six months or on the basis of consumption recorded for the corresponding six months of previous year whichever is higher while keeping in view of the defectiveness of the meter <br /> Let certified copies of order rendered be supplied to the parties and thereafter file be consigned to record rooim.<br /> <br /> Announced Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh<br /> 28.5.2009 Member Member President