Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Smt. Kawaljit Kaur complainant has brought the instant complaint under section  11 & 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  she has purchased property bearing plot No. 58, Holy City, Amritsar from Smt.Jaswinder Kaur vide sale deed dated 22.9.2009. After that complainant started the construction of the abovesaid plot and the same was completed in the year 2014. In the month of April/May 2014, complainant applied for the domestic electric connection in her name at her residential house bearing No. 58, Holy City, Amritsar with the opposite party and also submitted the requisite application form and also deposited a sum of Rs. 18,375/-.  Previously complainant was residing in a rented house at 56-A, Kennedy Avenue, Amritsar and she was having her domestic connection in her name in that house bearing account No. CL06/464, as such complainant and her family members had not shifted to the present house at 58, Holy City Estate, Amritsar after its construction and installation of new connection till July 2015. As such this house remained unoccupied till July 2015 but the opposite party did not issue any bill to her since installation of new connection and even account number was not allotted to her. The complainant alongwith her family members shifted to this house in August 2015 and started using the new connection. But after about a month complainant and her family members found that the meter installed in her premises was burnt . The husband of the complainant submitted an application to the opposite party to this effect with the request to change the burnt meter which was diarized  in the office of the opposite party vide No. 2339130 dated 26.8.2015. On the basis of the said application, the official of opposite party  visited the spot, checked the meter and made report to the effect that the meter was burnt and due to smoke inside it, some particulars were not visible and readable. A note was also made on that application itself that consumer was not allotted account number. Later on  the basis of aforesaid report, enforcement staff visited the spot, checked the meter on 23.9.2015 and prepared LCR and made report regarding burnt meter. SDO South Sub Division was called on the spot who reported that security was deposited on 8.1.2014 and no billing was made and account No. KS47/2012 was allotted  but no billing was being made in the records. The burnt meter was removed from the spot and was taken away in a loose condition without packing and sealing it  as required under the rules. On the basis of said LCR, a bill dated 24.9.2015 for Rs. 1,78,079/- showing the consumption of 24207 units was issued  by the opposite party to the complainant but no details of the said demand were mentioned in it nor provided to the complainant despite demand and visits by her. The complainant was called in the ME Lab on 9.10.2015 for the checking of the burnt meter  which was checked on that date and it was reported by the ME Lab that the meter was burnt, its price be recovered and while opening it, it was found OK, whereas its display was defective and reading was not readable. The complainant and her husband visited the opposite party and demanded the details of 24207 units  but they did not provide the same  and rather directed the complainant to deposit the entire amount. Since the opposite party failed to provide the details of the impugned demand. It is worth while to mention over here that before shifting from the aforesaid rented house at Kennedy Avenue to the present house, the complainant made a request to the opposite party to disconnect her connection bearing account No. CL 06/4464 and on her request PDCO of the said connection was made on 27.7.2015 by the opposite party and thereafter complainant shifted to the present house.. The reading of 24207 units shown in the bill is based on imagination and not on actual reading  because on account of burnt meter the reading was not readable. The complainant is liable and is ready to pay only the monthly minimum charges because she had shifted to this house only in the month of August, 2015. The complainant visited the opposite party number of times and requested them to withdraw the impugned bill and to issue regular bills to her according to actual consumption, but they refused to accede to the genuine request of the complainant. However, under threat of disconnection, the complainant deposited 25% of the disputed amount i.e. Rs. 45000/- with the opposite party.  The complainant vide instant complaint has sought for the following reliefs:-

i)       That opposite party be directed to withdraw the impugned bill for Rs. 1,78,079/- dated 24.9.2015 out of which Rs. 45000/- stood deposited by the complainant or in the alternative to set-aside the impugned demand;

ii)      That the opposite party be directed to issue fresh bill on the basis of monthly minimum charges and to accept the balance MMC from the complainant after deducting the payment of Rs. 45000/- and also be directed to issue regular bills in future;

iii)     Opposite party be ordered to pay Rs. 10000/- as compensation and Rs. 10000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the case by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter-alia that present complaint is not legally maintainable ; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint ; that complainant is estopped from filing the complaint against the opposite party ; that complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the notice of this Forum.  As a matter of fact an electric connection bearing account No. A24/KS47/2012 with sanctioned load of 11 KW was installed in the name of Smt.Kawaljit Kaur since 22.1.2014 under DS category at premises No. 58-A, Holy City, Amritsar . The consumer had consumed electricity through the abovesaid electric connection since its installation  and consumption of electric energy was recorded by the meter reader but the billing of the same was not produced as the same connection number was allotted already to other consumer when said electric connection was checked by Addl.SE Raghubir Singh Sandhu, Enforcement 3 alongwith other official on 23.9.2015 and found that consumer of said electric connection consumed 15.076 KW load against sanctioned load of 11 KW and electric meter was burnt. The official recommended to check the electric meter in ME Lab and the same was checked in ME Lab in the presence of Rupinder Singh, Representative of consumer on 9.10.2015 and found that electric meter was burnt from outside but the same was correct inside. The opposite party issued a bill of Rs. 1,78,079/-  on the basis of consumption of electric energy since its installation as per rules and regulation of PSPCL. On merits facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

3.       In her bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence her duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 and closed her evidence.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Sudhir Kumar,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Lekh Raj, SDO Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP40 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.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant applied for an electric connection for her newly constructed house situated at 58, Holy City Estate, Amritsar in the year 2015 after depositing fee of Rs. 18,375/- with the opposite party, copy of receipt accounts for Ex.C-3 on record. It was the case of the complainant that as she was residing in a rented house  at 56-A, Kennedy Avenue, Amritsar where an electric connection bearing No. CL06/464 has been installed , as such complainant and her family had not shifted to the present house till July 2015.  However, complainant before shifting to the newly constructed house at 58, Holy City Estate, Amritsar made a request to the opposite party to disconnect her connection bearing account No. CL06/4464 installed at her rented house. On the request of the complainant, PDCO was made on 27.7.2015 by the opposite party and thereafter complainant shifted to the present house. Thereafter complainant shifted to her house in August 2015 and started using the new connection. However, complainant and her family members found that the meter installed in her premises was burnt. In this regard complainant submitted an application to the opposite party  and requested them to change the burnt meter which was diarized at No. 2339130 dated  26.8.2015 on the basis of which the official of the opposite party visited the spot checked the meter and made report that the meter was burnt and due to smoke inside it, some particulars were not visible and readable, copy of application accounts for Ex.C-7 on record. Thereafter on the basis of aforesaid report, enforcement staff visited the spot, checked the meter on 23.9.2015 and made a report regarding burnt meter .  SDO South Sub Division was called  on the spot, who reported  that security was deposited on 8.1.2014 and no billing was made and account No. KS47/2012 was allotted  but no billing was being made in the records. However, on the basis of said LCR  a bill dated 24.9.2015 for Rs. 1,78,079/- showing consumption of 24207 units was issued . However, no details of the said demand was mentioned in it.  The burnt meter which was removed from the premises of the complainant was checked in ME Lab and it was reported  that the meter was burnt, its price be recovered  and while opening it, it was found OK, whereas its display was defective and reading was not readable. The opposite party has raised a demand of Rs. 1,78,079/- vide bill dated 24.9.2015 , copy whereof is Ex.C-4.  Ld.counsel for the complainant has contended  that the reading of 24207 units shown in the bill is based on imagination and not on actual reading because on account of burnt meter, the reading was not readable.  It is proved on record that the meter was found burnt and a noting in this regard was made on application filed by the complainant which is Ex.C-7 in which it was specifically mentioned that the meter was found burnt on the spot and due to smoke inside the meter the particulars of the meter were not visible. The opposite party has issued the bill dated 24.9.2015 for the period from 28.1.2014 to 30.8.2015 to the tune of Rs. 1,78,079/-. The counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that complainant has shifted to her house in August , 2015 and started using the electric connection. It was also the case of the complainant that her house remained unoccupied till July 2015 and the opposite party did not issue any bill to her since installation of this connection and even account number was not allotted to her . In this regard complainant has produced on record an application dated 27.8.2015 Ex.C-7 in which it was specifically mentioned that no account number was issued to the meter installed in the premises of the complainant . However, the opposite party did not produce any evidence to rebut the aforesaid evidence. But before charging this amount in the current consumption bill, no prior notice was issued to the complainant by the opposite party asking the complainant to deposit this amount of Rs. 1,78,079/- or to file objections, if any. So the complainant was not given any opportunity of being heard before charging this amount under head sundry charges from the complainant in the current consumption bill dated 24.9.2015 Ex.C-4 . As per regulation 124.1  of the Electricity Supply Regulations, opposite party cannot include any arrears or any other amount from the consumer in the current consumption bill without giving prior notice to the consumer. Therefore, opposite party has violated the provisions of its own rules and regulations while charging this amount of Rs. 1,78,079/- under head sundry charges in the bill Ex.C-3. So this demand of Rs. 9427/- raised by the opposite party from the complainant in the current consumption bill Ex.C-4 dated 24.9.2015 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set-aside.

10.     Resultantly the complaint is disposed off and the impugned demand of Rs. 1,78,079/- raised by the opposite party vide bill dated 24.9.2015 Ex.C-4 is hereby set-aside. However, opposite party can charge this amount from the  complainant by following proper procedure as law/procedure laid down under regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations i.e. after giving prior notice and after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the complainant. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the orders 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 : 9.3.2017

/R/