Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Mrs. Rajwinder Kaur w/o Satnam Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  she is having an electric connection bearing No. T23CH720388X for her domestic use. The complainant has been making payment of all the bills raised by the opposite party regularly . The opposite party issued memo No. 1126 dated 26.4.2016 raising a demand of Rs. 49,636/-. The complainant approached the opposite party and made representation. The officials of the opposite party marked enquiry . In the meanwhile opposite party took the meter  to the ME Lab for checking . However, the complainant was never called into the ME Lab nor any checking of the meter was done in the presence of the complainant nor the meter was sealed and packed as per the procedure laid down by the opposite party. The opposite party instead of rectifying the memo, threatened the complainant that in case she did not make the payment of the said bill, her connection will be disconnected . The aforesaid act of the opposite party in demanding the alleged amount, amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-

(a)     Opposite party be directed not to demand the alleged amount of Rs. 49,636/- raised vide memo No. 1126 dated 26.4.2016. In case  any amount deposited from the impugned amount during the pendency of the present complaint, opposite party be directed to refund the same alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment till realization.

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 25000/- be also awarded to the complainant alongwith adequate litigation expenses.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       On notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version in which it was submitted  the complainant was having electric connection bearing account No. CH72/0388 under DS category having sanctioned load of 0.96KW. It was submitted that the complainant approached the opposite party and stated that his meter was running fast  and wanted to get the meter changed and tested from the ME Lab. Thereafter the complainant deposited the meter challenge fee of Rs. 120/- on 10.2.2016. The complainant had also given his consent that he has no objection if his meter be tested from the ME Lab in his absence. Thereafter the old meter of the complainant was removed vide MCO No. 50/150801 dated 10.2.2016 and the same was packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant . New meter bearing account No. CH72/0388 was installed at the premises of the consumer . Thereafter the meter was sent to the ME Lab for checking on 30.3.206. During the course of checking the meter was found to be ‘OK’ . Thereafter on receipt of the report of the ME Lab, a memo bearing No. 1126 dated 26.4.2016 raising a demand of Rs. 49,636/- was issued to the complainant. But the complainant has not paid the said amount till date. The said bill has been sent to the complainant on the basis of actual consumption  made by the complainant. It was denied that any such threat as alleged by the complainant has been given to the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       In his bid to prove the case Sh.Inderjit Lakhra,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of memo No. 1126 dated 26.4.2016 Ex.C-2,  copies of the applications moved by the complainant Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4, copy of payment receipt dated 10.2.2016 Ex.C-5, copy of payment receipt dated 30.5.2016 Ex.C-6, copy of bill dated 28.5.2016 Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh. N.S.Sandhu, Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Kumar, SDO Ex.OP1, copy of consent letter Ex.OP2, copy of ME Lab report Ex.OP3, copy of MCO Ex.OP4, consumption data 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 record on the file.

6.       Ld. Counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that  the meter of the complainant was checked in ME Lab as per the consent given by the complainant Ex.OP2.  Consequently the removed meter of the complainant was checked in the ME Lab and the same was found to be ‘OK’. Thereafter the opposite party sent notice vide memo No. 1126 dated 26.4.2016  raising a demand of Rs. 49,636/-  to which the complainant is legally bound to pay. . It is  the case of the Opposite Party that the electric meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No. 50/150801 dated 10.2.2016 and at the time of removing the meter  the same was packed and sealed in the presence of the complainant and new meter bearing account No. CH72/0388 was installed at the premises of the complainant.

7.       But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that that opposite party has not complied with the rules as well as regulation of PSPCL while raising the demand of Rs. 49,636/- raised  vide memo No. 1126 dated 26.4.2016. Perusal of copy of alleged notice Ex.C-2 shows that it cannot be treated as  proper notice  as required U/s 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations . It is just  a simple letter written to the complainant informing the complainant to pay the impugned amount. But however, the opposite party could not charge this amount from the complainant vide simple notice without issuing separate detailed notice as per  regulation 124.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations of the opposite party. It has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case PSEB Vs. Hardeep Singh 2010(2)CLT 259 that where the payment of Rs. 27501/- 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. Since the opposite party has failed to comply with the aforesaid provisions as well as natural principle governing  the conduct and the proceedings of the opposite party, therefore, the impugned demand raised vide memo No. 1126 dated 26.4.2016  for Rs. 49,636/- stands quashed. However, the opposite party is at liberty to raise demand afresh from the complainant by following proper procedure. With these observations, the complaint stands allowed. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Dated : 18.11.2016