Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President

1.       Sh.Rachhpal Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he is permanent resident of the above said address and a law abiding citizen of India. The complainant alongwith his brother is running their work of repairing the machines at the aforesaid address. The complainant is a self employed person and he alongwith his entire family is dependent upon the aforesaid repair works for their livelihood. An electric connection bearing account No. 3002881944 with sanctioned load of 7.980 KW has been installed in the aforesaid premises of the complainant and  he has been paying the bills of electricity consumed by him to the Opposite Party regularly and properly. The average electricity bills of the aforesaid electricity connection of the complainant is Rs.1500/- to Rs.1600/- for two months, which were being paid by the complainant from time to time. The copies of bills alongwith receipts are attached herewith. On 17.6.2015 the complainant found that  the meter of the aforesaid electricity connection was not running properly and it was recording excess reading of consumption than the consumed in the premises of the complainant, as such, the Opposite Party    approached the Opposite Party and vide written application dated 17.6.2015 requested to check the meter in question and also deposited Rs.450/- against receipt No.145 of even date. On 17.2.2016 the complainant received electricity bill qua his electric connection, in which an amount of Rs.97,480/- has been claimed by the Opposite Party from the complainant. The complainant immediately approached the Opposite Party and asked for the aforesaid illegal demand of Rs. 97,480/-, upon which the officials of the Opposite Party told the complainant that earlier the meter of the complainant was recording consumption for the period of 17.6.2015 of energy and as such the difference has been claimed by the Opposite Party. The complainant was never called by the Opposite Party for the checking of the meter. The checking of the meter, if any, conducted by the Opposite Party has not been done in the presence of complainant which is mandatory as per law. The complainant requested the officials of the Opposite Party to withdraw their illegal demand of Rs.97,480/-, but they are not listening the complainant and two days back, the officials of the Opposite Party threatened the complainant to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant, if the aforesaid illegal demand is not paid by him.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to withdraw  the aforesaid faulty bill dated 17.2.2016.

b)      A compensation alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

c)       Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled under the law and equity may also be awarded to him. 

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 not maintainable against the Opposite Party as the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant moved an application to the Opposite Party for checking his meter in ME lab and on his request, the electricity meter of the complainant was removed from the premises of the complainant vide MCO No. 50810 dated 17.6.2015 which was effected on 18.6.2015. After that, the electricity meter of the complainant was checked in ME lab on 22.6.2015 with the consent letter of the complainant and the electricity meter of the complainant was found to be OK.  Thereafter, the bill dated 17.2.2016 was issued to the complainant according to actual consumption of the complainant.    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 i.e. copy of letter dated 17.6.2015 Ex.C2, copy of payment receipt Ex.C3, copy of bill Ex.C4, copy of bill dated 17.2.2016 Ex.C6, copy of payment receipt Ex.C6, copy of the cheque Ex.C7, copies of electricity bills and receipts Ex.C8 to Ex.C19, copy of letter and payment receipt Ex.C20 and Ex.C21, copies of bills and payment receipts Ex.C22 to Ex.C41 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 Engg.Vipan Vig Ex.OP1, report Ex.OP2, consent letter Ex.OP3, consumption data Ex.OP4, checking report 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.       From the perusal of evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant Rachhpal Singh filed an application on 17.6.2015, copy whereof is Ex.C2 on record, which was submitted to SDO, Mall Mandi, Amritsar with a request that his meter was running at a high speed  and it was showing excessive reading by making a jump and he wanted to challenge the meter. The complainant also deposited meter challenge fee to the tune of Rs.450/- with Opposite Party on that very day, copy of receipt regarding the payment is Ex.C3 on record. On the request of the complainant, the meter was changed vide MCO, copy whereof is Ex.OP2, in the presence of the complainant and the complainant executed the consent letter for checking the meter in dispute in ME Lab in his absence which accounts for Ex.OP3. ME Lab report was received on 22.6.2015, copy  whereof is Ex.OP5, vide which meter was found to be normal. In the face of evidence on record, contention of the complainant that he has been excessively charged by PSPCL regarding the bill in dispute, copy whereof Ex.C4, falls to the ground. Consequently, the objection regarding excessive billing raised by the complainant can not be sustained because the complainant has been charged for actual consumption recorded in the electric meter in dispute. In such a situation, in our considered opinion, the complainant has completely failed to prove his case and therefore, the demand of Rs.97,480/- raised vide impugned bill can not be set aside. Resultantly, instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed.   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: 23.09.2016.