Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1. Present complaint has been filed by Mrs.Pooja Bhatia under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she is consumer of electricity connection bearing Account No.C16GT162847X for her domestic use and  is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant  is making the payment of the bills raised by the Opposite Party from time to time and nothing is due towards him. The Opposite Party issued the bill dated 3.6.2016 wherein the amount of Rs.2,15,091/- was added under the head of Arrears. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and made representation and the officials of the Opposite Party marked the enquiry on it and assured the complainant that he will be notified about the fate of the said enquiry. It is  that the complainant received exaggerated bills in the month of July, 2015 to October, 2015 and the complainant challenged the meter and the meter challenge fee of Rs.450/- was also got deposited with the Opposite Party vide receipt dated 1.10.2015 and thereafter the Opposite Party had rectified the said bills and is further worthwhile to mention over here that the Opposite Party has never got the meter checked in the presence of the complainant in the ME lab after removal of the meter.  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 payments 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 arrears leveled by the Opposite Party in the current bill of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention over here that the complainant was issued bills on wrong average basis earlier and was subject to payment on report of ME lab about the defective meter installed and no such report was ever given and correct average as per rules were levied. Said act 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, Unfair Trade Practice  and mal practices.  Vide the instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:

a)       Opposite Party be directed not to demand the alleged amount of Rs.2,15,091/- raised in the bill dated 3.6.2016 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)      Opposite Party be directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-

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

Hence this complaint.        

2. Upon notice,  opposite party appeared and filed written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that  the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. On merits, it was averred that consumer challenged the working of the meter by depositing Rs.450/- as meter challenge fee vide receipt dated 1.10.2015. The bill was issued for the period 28.8.2015 to 30.9.2015 i.e. for 33 days for 6966 unit amounting to Rs.54,790/-. The consumer was allowed to deposit consumption of previous year of 582 unit for Rs.4365/- provisionally. The second bill for period 30.9.2015 to 6.11.2015 for 37 days consuming unit 9199 for Rs.72072/- was also accepted provisionally for Rs.4365/-. Thus, the arrears of above mentioned bills was added  in the current bill under dispute. The challenge meter of the complainant was replaced on 6.12.2015 vide application dated 6.10.2015 as final reading 58783 units and then new meter was installed with initial reading of 000002 KW. The challenged meter of the complainant was got checked in ME lab vide challan No.19 dated 8.3.2016 in the presence of the husband of the complainant namely Vijay Kumar Bhatia as representative and meter was found correct in test and its accuracy result was found correct as per rules. As such, the complainant instead to deposit the correct demanded amount in the bill had filed the present complaint to delay the payment and to cause loss of exchequer to the department. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith copy of documents Ex.C2 to C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the   Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ajay Pal Singh AEE Commercial Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the is consumer of electricity connection bearing Account No.C16GT162847X for her domestic use and  is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant  is making the payment of the bills raised by the Opposite Party from time to time and nothing is due towards him. The Opposite Party issued the bill dated 3.6.2016 wherein the amount of Rs.2,15,091/- was added under the head of Arrears. The complainant approached the Opposite Party and made representation and the officials of the Opposite Party marked the enquiry on it and assured the complainant that he will be notified about the fate of the said enquiry. It is  that the complainant received exaggerated bills in the month of July, 2015 to October, 2015 and the complainant challenged the meter and the meter challenge fee of Rs.450/- was also got deposited with the Opposite Party vide receipt dated 1.10.2015 and thereafter the Opposite Party had rectified the said bills and is further worthwhile to mention over here that the Opposite Party has never got the meter checked in the presence of the complainant in the ME lab after removal of the meter.  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 payments 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 arrears leveled by the Opposite Party in the current bill of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention over here that the complainant was issued bills on wrong average basis earlier and was subject to payment on report of ME lab about the defective meter installed and no such report was ever given and correct average as per rules were levied. Said act 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, Unfair Trade Practice  and mal practices.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the consumer had challenged the working of the meter by depositing Rs.450/- as meter challenge fee vide receipt dated 1.10.2015. The bill was issued for the period 28.8.2015 to 30.9.2015 i.e. for 33 days for 6966 unit amounting to Rs.54,790/-. The consumer was allowed to deposit consumption of previous year of 582 unit for Rs.4365/- provisionally. The second bill for period 30.9.2015 to 6.11.2015 for 37 days consuming unit 9199 for Rs.72072/- was also accepted provisionally for Rs.4365/-. Thus, the arrears of above mentioned bills was added  in the current bill under dispute. The challenge meter of the complainant was replaced on 6.12.2015 vide application dated 6.10.2015 as final reading 58783 units and then new meter was installed with initial reading of 000002 KW. The challenged meter of the complainant was got checked in ME lab vide challan No.19 dated 8.3.2016 in the presence of the husband of the complainant namely Vijay Kumar Bhatia as representative and meter was found correct in test and its accuracy result was found correct as per rules. As such, the complainant instead to deposit the correct demanded amount in the bill had filed the present complaint to delay the payment and to cause loss of exchequer to the department.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the removed meter of the complainant was checked by the officials of the Opposite Party and  challenge meter of the complainant was replaced on 6.12.2015 vide application dated 6.10.2015 as final reading 58783 units and then new meter was installed with initial reading of 000002 KW. The challenged meter of the complainant was got checked in ME lab vide challan No.19 dated 8.3.2016 in the presence of the husband of the complainant namely Vijay Kumar Bhatia as representative and thereafter, the impugned amount has been added by the Opposite Party in the current consumption bill in dispute. 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 Ex.C4 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. 2,15,091/-  raised by the Opposite Party from the complainant under the head ‘arrears’ vide bill dated 3.6.2016 Ex.C4 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 directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant besides Rs.1,000/- 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.

Dated: 27.02.2017