Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member.

1.       Sh.Madan Lal 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.A52GM541312L 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 belongs to Scheduled caste and he is also exempted four hundred units of electricity and is mostly receiving the bills Zero and in the month of October, 2016 the complainant received  bill of Rs.420/- only and the same has been paid accordingly. Now the Opposite Party has issued illegal bill in December, 2016 adding a sum of Rs.11,230/- stating that there was previous difference, but the same is absolutely wrong. The complainant has only five points i.e. fridge, TV and three bulbs only and he has not used the electricity to that extent and moreover, the complainant is labourer and he has no sufficient income  nor he has used such units of electricity. The complainant approached the Opposite Party  to withdraw the said illegal amount, but to no affect.   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.20,000/- to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party be directed not to recover the alleged amount of Rs.11,230/- raised in bill of December 2016  from the complainant.

b)      Opposite Party  be directed not to disconnect the connection of the complainant.

c)       Opposite Party  be directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

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. It is submitted that the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.121/42920 dated 8.5.2015 effected on 30.5.2015. After changing of the meter of the complainant, the account of the complainant was overhauled by the audit party and the reading of the meter was 1 on 8/2015 and the new reading was 2249-1=2248 units and after concessional 800 units from 2248 units, it came to 1448 units and said concession of 400 units per month is being given to the SC category people. Thereafter, a memo bearing No. 1935 dated 20.9.2016 demanding an amount of Rs.11,011/- of 1448 units  was sent to the complainant and he is bound to pay the same. Hence said demand is legal and valid and the complainant is bound to pay the same.   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.C18 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.Sukhpreet Singh, SDO 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 complainant and  ld.counsel for Opposite Party  and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       The complainant  has contended that he is having electric connection No.A52GM541312L 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 belongs to Scheduled caste and he is also exempted four hundred units of electricity ad is mostly receiving the bills Zero and in the month of October, 2016 the complainant received only bill of Rs.420/- and the same has been paid accordingly. Now the Opposite Party has issued illegal bill in December, 2016 adding a sum of Rs.11230/- stating that there was previous difference, but the same is absolutely wrong. The complainant has only five points i.e. fridge, TV and three bulbs only and he has not used the electricity to that extent and moreover, the complainant is labourer and he has no sufficient income  nor he has used such units of electricity. The complainant approached the Opposite Party  to withdraw the said illegal amount, but to no affect.   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 has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the  Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that  the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.121/42920 dated 8.5.2015 effected on 30.5.2015. After changing of the meter of the complainant, the account of the complainant was overhauled by the audit party and the reading of the meter was 1 on 8/2015 and the new reading was 2249-1=2248 units and after concessional 800 units from 2248 units, it came to 1448 units and said concession of 400 units per month is being given to the SC category people. Thereafter, a memo bearing No. 1935 dated 20.9.2016 demanding an amount of Rs.11,011/- of 1448 units  was sent to the complainant and he is bound to pay the same, 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 submitted that a memo bearing No. 1935 dated 20.9.2016 demanding an amount of Rs.11,011/- of 1448 units  was sent to the complainant, copy of the said is though exhibited on record as Ex.OP3, but said notice is not signed neither by the complainant nor any of his representative and hence said document can not be treated as notice to the complainant. In this way, the Opposite Party  had directly added the hefty impugned amount in the consumption bill of the complainant  who is a labourer and belongs to SC category. Perusal of the consumption bill Ex.C2 shows that the Opposite Party has added the impugned amount on account of arrears in this bill.  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. 11,230/-  raised by the Opposite Party from the complainant under the head ‘sundry charges’ vide bill of December, 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.  Opposite Party  is also directed to pay to the complainant the compensation of Rs.2000/-. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

on within further 15 days.    All the Opposite Parties are also jointly and severally  directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation, besides Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation.   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