Order dictated by:

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Amrinder Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant is the holder of electric connection bearing account No.3002567913 installed at his residential premises. Ever since the installation of this domestic connection, the complainant has been making payment of the bills regularly from time to time.  The complainant was surprised to receive bill dated 27.4.2016 for Rs. 70,980/- which is very much excessive and exorbitant . His bill never exceeded to Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 10000/-. Neither any details of this amount was given by the opposite party nor any separate notice has been issued to the complainant. On receipt of the bill, the complainant visited the opposite party and asked about the details of the said demand and showed  the previous bills and receipts to them, but the opposite party did not listen to the complainant  and rather threatened the complainant to pay this entire amount otherwise his connection will be disconnected. When the complainant showed his inability to pay such a huge amount, the opposite party i.e. SDO asked the complainant to pay the same in installments. So in order to avoid disconnection of his electric connection, the complainant made payments of Rs. 10000/- , Rs. 10000/- and Rs. 7710/- to the opposite party against receipts issued to him. The mother of the complainant submitted an application in the month of June 2016 to the opposite party regarding excessive bill and also requested that there might be some defect in the meter installed in her house and the same be got checked . But the opposite party neither checked the meter nor replaced it for the reasons best known to them. She alongwith her son visited the opposite party many a times to get the meter checked, but to no avail. Again opposite party issued a bill dated 24.6.2016 raising a demand of Rs. 59,420/- which is also very much excessive. On receipt of this bill, complainant approached the opposite party and requested them to correct this bill and to issue the fresh bill of actual consumption , but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(i)      Opposite party be directed to withdraw both these bills and to issue correct bills and to adjust the payments already made or in the alternative the same may be set-aside.

(ii)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant always made part payments and never paid the whole amount of the bills. The officials of the opposite party prepared the consumption data of the complainant and thereafter a bill dated 27.4.2016 demanding an amount of Rs. 70,980/- was sent to the complainant  to which the complainant is bound to pay the same. It was submitted that the mother of the complainant moved an application in the month of June 2016 requesting that the complainant is not in a position to make payment of the bills in whole and he is ready to make part payment. It was submitted that neither the meter was checked nor it    was replaced as the opposite party did not find any necessity for the same. The bill dated 24.6.2016 for  Rs. 59,420/- has been issued to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption  and previous arrears of bills have been added in the same and the complainant is bound to pay the same. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, payment receipts Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5, affidavit of Smt.Rajwant Kaur Ex.CW2/A and closed his evidence.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.N.S.Sandhu,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Kawalpreet Singh, SDO Ex.OP1, copy of consumption data Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3, copies of bills Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that he is holder of electric connection bearing account No.3002567913 which has been installed at his residential premises and ever since the installation of this domestic connection, the complainant has been making payment of the bills regularly from time to time.  It was the case of the complainant that he was surprised to receive bill dated 27.4.2016 for Rs. 70,980/- which is very much excessive and exorbitant as his bill never exceeded to Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 10000/-.  It  has been contended that before raising such demand neither any details of this amount was given by the opposite party nor any separate notice has been issued to the complainant. On receipt of the bill, the complainant visited the opposite party  and showed his inability to pay such a huge amount, then the opposite party i.e. SDO asked the complainant to pay the same in installments. So in order to avoid disconnection of his electric connection, the complainant made payments of Rs. 10000/- , Rs. 10000/- and Rs. 7710/- to the opposite party against receipts issued to him. It has further been contended on behalf of the complainant that  mother of the complainant submitted an application in the month of June 2016 to the opposite party regarding excessive bill and also requested that there might be some defect in the meter installed in her house and the same be got checked . But the opposite party neither checked the meter nor replaced it . Again opposite party issued a bill dated 24.6.2016 raising a demand of Rs. 59,420/- which is also very much excessive. On receipt of this bill, complainant approached the opposite party and requested them to correct this bill and to issue the fresh bill of actual consumption , but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant.  Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service.

7.       On the other hand  ld.counsel for  the opposite party  has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that complainant always made part payments and never paid the whole amount of the bills. The officials of the opposite party prepared the consumption data of the complainant and thereafter a bill dated 27.4.2016 demanding an amount of Rs. 70,980/- was sent to the complainant  to which the complainant is bound to pay the same. It was submitted that the mother of the complainant moved an application in the month of June 2016 requesting that the complainant is not in a position to make payment of the bills in whole and he is ready to make part payment. It was submitted that neither the meter was checked nor it   was replaced as the opposite party did not find any necessity for the same. The bill dated 24.6.2016 for  Rs. 59,420/- has been issued to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption  and previous arrears of bills have been added in the same and the complainant is bound to pay the same.

8.       From the perusal of the record , it becomes evident that the stand of the opposite party that the complainant never made whole amount and always made part payments of the bills issued to the complainant. In this regard opposite party has placed on record consumption data Ex.OP2 which proves that from 1/2013  to 10/2013 complainant never made payment of any bills issued to him and in 12/2013 complainant made part payment of Rs. 6500/- on 1.11.2013 and thereafter again 2/2014 to 8/2014 complainant never made payment of any bills issued to him and in 10/14 the complainant made part payment of Rs. 10000/-  and again in 12/2014  and 2/15 complainant never made payment of these bills and in 4/2015 complainant made payment of Rs. 10000/- and again from 6/2015 to 8/2016 complainant never made payment of these months and only part payment of Rs. 7710/- as well as Rs. 10000/-was made on 4.5.2016. As such every time the  remaining amount of the abovesaid bills since 1/2013 have been forwarded in the next bills . As such bill dated 27.4.2016 raising a demand of Rs. 70,980/- was issued to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption charges and the complainant made part payments of the said bill in installments of Rs. 10000/- as well as Rs. 7710/- on 4.5.2016 and the remaining amount kept pending and the same was forwarded in the next bill.  As such the complainant was issued bill dated 24.6.2016 raising a demand of Rs. 59,420/- which is legal and valid and the same is based on actual consumption charges.   The complainant has not produced any evidence in the shape of receipts that he ever made payments of the bills issued to him except the receipts of payment of Rs. 10000/- as well as Rs. 7710/- on 4.5.2016 and Rs. 12960/- on 12.9.2016 i.e. during the proceedings of this complaint. As the bills were issued to the complainant on actual consumption charges  and it was the complainant who failed to make payment of the bills issued to him on actual consumption charges since 1/2013 till date, as such there is no necessity to check the meter and to replace the same .

9.       In view of the above discussion, we find no merit and substance in the present complaint and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.  Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 3.8.2017