Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member.

1.       Sh.Jang Bahadur has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is having electric connection No.CA21LE191541K for his domestic use, the complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant is making the payment of all the bills raised by the Opposite Party from time to time and nothing is due towards him. The Opposite Party did not issue the bill to the complainant for some period as on the pretext that there software system is not uploaded, and out of blue issued a bill dated 30.4.2016 wherein the amount of Rs.12,770/- was demanded, without providing any details as mandatory according to rules and regulations of the Opposite Party. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and made representation and the officials of the Opposite Party and they appointed enquiry officer and they assured the complainant that  he will inform about the fate of the said enquiry. The complainant again approached the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party instead of rectifying the bill threatened the complainant in case he did not make the payment of the said bill, his connection will be disconnected.  It is pertinent to mention over here that no prior notice or any detail has been given to the complainant about the said sundry charges  in the current bill of the complainant. Said acts of the Opposite Party in demanding the alleged amount in the current bill without affording any opportunity of being heard from the complainant is an act of deficiency in service, mal practices, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant for which the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party be directed not to demand the alleged amount of Rs.12,770/- raised in bill dated 30.4.2016 from the complainant. In case of any amount deposited from the said impugned amount during the pendancy of the present complaint, be allowed to be refunded with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till realization.

b)      op be directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

c)       Opposite Party be directed to pay the adequate cost of the litigation.

d)      Any other relief to which the complainant is found under the law, equity and justice be also allowed.     

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is legally not maintainable; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the electric connection in dispute is installed in the premises of the complainant with sanctioned load of 3.740 KW under DS category. It is denied that the complainant is making the payment of all the bills raised by the Opposite Party from time to time and it is also denied that nothing is due towards him. The complainant is habitual defaulter and no payment was made by the complainant to Opposite Party on 30.4.2016 includes the arrear of the previous unpaid bill to the complainant for Rs.12,070/-. It is also denied being wrong and  incorrect any sundry charges included in the bill dated 30.4.2016. It is arrear of unpaid bill which is not deposited by the complainant to the Opposite Party. The meter of the complainant was defective so all the bills were issued on average basis. Now the meter of the complainant is replaed by Opposite Party on 11.4.2016. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Amritpal Singh AEE Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 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 evidence on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has contended that  the complainant is making the payment of all the bills raised by the Opposite Party from time to time and nothing is due towards him. The Opposite Party did not issue the bill to the complainant for some period as on the pretext that there software system is not uploaded, and out of blue issued a bill dated 30.4.2016 wherein the amount of Rs.12,770/- was demanded, without providing any details as mandatory according to rules and regulations of the Opposite Party. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and made representation and the officials of the Opposite Party and they formed enquiry officer and they assured the complainant that  he will be notified about the fate of the said enquiry. The complainant again approached the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party instead of rectifying the bill threatened the complainant in case he did not make the payment of the said bill, his connection will be disconnected.  It is pertinent to mention over here that no prior notice or any detail has been given to the complainant about the said sundry charges  in the current bill of the complainant. Said acts of the Opposite Party in demanding the alleged amount in the current bill without affording any opportunity of being heard from the complainant is an act of deficiency in service.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the  Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that  complainant is habitual defaulter and no payment was made by the complainant to Opposite Party on 30.4.2016 includes the arrear of the previous unpaid bill to the complainant for Rs.12,070/-. It is also denied being wrong and  incorrect any sundry charges included in the bill dated 30.4.2016. It is arrear of unpaid bill which is not deposited by the complainant to the Opposite Party. The meter of the complainant was defective so all the bills were issued on average basis. Now the meter of the complainant is replaed by Opposite Party on 11.4.2016, hence the demand raised by the Opposite Party is legal and valid. 

8.       From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that though the Opposite Party has denied being wrong and  incorrect any sundry charges included in the bill dated 30.4.2016. It is arrear of unpaid bill which is not deposited by the complainant to the Opposite Party. The meter of the complainant was defective so all the bills were issued on average basis. But the perusal of the consumption bill Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 shows that the Opposite Party has added some amount on account of arrears in these bills.  However, the Opposite Party could not charge this amount from the complainant in the current electricity consumption bill without issuing prior detailed notice as per regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party. It has been held by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case PSEB Vs. Hardeep Singh  2010(2) CLT 259 that where the demand was not raised by the appellant through a separate detailed notice as required by Regulation 124.1 and added in the bill in dispute as sundry charges, there is violation  of the regulation of the Opposite Party. However, the appellant is at liberty to raise fresh demand of the amount in dispute and can charge the same from the complainant by following proper procedure. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case Ishar Singli Vs. PSEB 2011 (2) CLT page 420. In the present case also, the Opposite Party has directly charged this amount from the complainant in the current electric consumption bill in dispute without serving prior notice  and giving the complainant an opportunity to file the objections, if any,  i.e. without giving  prior opportunity of being heard to the complainant.

9.       Consequently, this demand of Rs. 12,770/-  raised by the Opposite Party from the complainant under the head ‘sundry charges’ vide bill dated 30.4.2016 is not sustainable and as such, the same is hereby set aside. However, the Opposite Party is at liberty to raise this demand afresh from the complainant after following proper procedure as laid down under regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the Opposite Party.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 10.03.2017.