1.       Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Ram Dass and Smt.Raj Rani under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the house bearing pvt.plot No.4 min, Khasra No.82//22 min situated in the area of Gumtala Suburban Abadi Sri Guru Amar Dass Avenue, Tehsil & District Amritsar was previously owned by Gaurav Khanna. In the said house , the electricity connection of DS category bearing account No. 3002041615 was installed in the name of the previous owner Gaurav Khanna. The complainants have purchased the aforesaid house alongwith the electric connection vide sale deed dated 25.5.2015. Since the date of purchase complainants alongwith  their family members are residing in it and are using the electricity through this electric connection  and are paying the bills to the opposite party regularly. But the bills are still being issued in the name of previous owner Gaurav Khanna. Complainant No.1 approached the opposite party and requested them for change of the name  of complainant in place of Gaurav Khanna and also submitted the copy of sale deed, but the opposite party has not changed the name in the bills . The complainants never interfered with the working of the meter installed in the said premises . Previously the complainants noticed that the meter was running very fast and lateron it had burnt. Intimation to this effect was given to the opposite party and a sum of Rs. 120/- as meter checking fee was deposited by the complainants . The meter was got checked in the Lab  and according to the report of the Lab., no fault on the part of the complainants was found . An application dated 8.8.2016 was submitted  by the son of the complainants namely Sanjiv Kumar to the opposite party which was duly received in the office of South Sub Division, but no action has been taken on the said application. Thereafter opposite party issued a bill dated 23.11.2016 to the complainant for a period of 60 days i.e. from 24.9.2016 to 23.11.2016 to the tune of Rs. 75,251/- for the consumption of 689 units. The amount claimed vide this bill  in respect of the domestic connection is very much excessive, exorbitant and illegal. Moreover no details of this amount nor any separate notice/memo has been issued to the  complainants. However, if there is any kind of arrears etc. in respect of this connection, the same cannot be added/claimed in the current bill. In this bill amount of Rs. 22697/- was shown as arrears of current year and Rs. 35,386/-as arrears of previous year. On receipt of bill, complainant approached the  opposite party and requested them to withdraw /correct this bill and to claim the actual consumption charges for the aforesaid period of 60 days , but they refused to listen to the genuine request of the complainant  and rather threatened to disconnect their connection if the entire amount of this bill is not deposited. The complainants , who are old aged persons visited the opposite party number of times and requested them to withdraw/correct this bill, but to no effect. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite party be directed to withdraw/correct the disputed bill dated 23.11.2016 and to issue fresh bill on actual consumption charges  or in the alternative the same may be set-aside ;

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was denied that complainants never interfered with the working of the meter installed in the said premises  in any manner. It was also denied  that previously the complainants noticed that the meter was running very fast and lateron it had burnt. It was denied that intimation to this effect was given to the opposite party as alleged. It was denied that checking fee was deposited by the complainant and the meter was got checked in the Laboratory. So far as issuing of bill is concerned the same is correct one and correct consumption has been shown by the meter reader in the meter . It was denied that the amount claimed in the bill is very excessive. Rather the correct bill as per consumption  consumed by the complainants has been issued  to the complainant. It was denied that the complainants had not consumed the electricity to the extent of Rs. 75000/- . It was denied that no detail of this amount nor any separate notice has been issued 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 bill dated 23.11.2016 Ex.C-2, copy of application dated 8.8.2016 Ex.C-3, copies of payment receipts Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 , copy of sale deed Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.

4.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Ms. Sharanpal Sandhu tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Ninderpal SDO South Sub Division Ex.OP1, consumption data Ex.OP2 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 complainant has reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the complainants have purchased the aforesaid house alongwith the electric connection vide sale deed dated 25.5.2015 from its previous owner Gaurav Khanna, copy of sale deed has been placed on record Ex.C-7.  It was the case of the complainant that since the date of purchase complainants alongwith  their family members are residing in it and are using the electricity through this electric connection  and are paying the bills though in the name of previous owner Gaurav Khanna, to the opposite party regularly.  It was further the case of the complainants that complainant No.1 approached the opposite party and requested them for change of the name  of complainant in place of Gaurav Khanna and also submitted the copy of sale deed, but the opposite party has not changed the name in the bills  . The complainants noticed that the meter was running very fast and lateron it had burnt. In this regard intimation was given to the opposite party, copy of application is Ex.C-3 on record and a sum of Rs. 120/- as meter checking fee was deposited by the complainants , copy of receipt for payment of Rs 120/- Ex.C-4 has also been placed on record.  It was the case of the complainant that the meter was got checked in the Lab  and according to the report of the Lab., no fault on the part of the complainants was found . The opposite party issued a bill dated 23.11.2016 to the complainant for a period of 60 days i.e. from 24.9.2016 to 23.11.2016 to the tune of Rs. 75,251/- for the consumption of 689 units which is very much excessive, exorbitant and illegal. It has been contended on behalf of the complainant that no details of this amount nor any separate notice/memo has been issued to the  complainants. Ld.counsel for the complainant contended that all this amounts to deficiency in service.

7.       On the other hand ld.counsel for the opposite party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the ld.counsel for the complainant and has denied all the averments taken by the complainant in his complaint and has contended that  correct bill as per consumption  consumed by the complainants has been issued  to the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

8.       But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case the opposite party has denied each and every allegations taken by the complainant in his complaint. The averments  of the complainants that they noticed that the meter was running very fast and lateron it had burnt and in this regard intimation was given to the opposite party, copy of application is Ex.C-3 on record and a sum of Rs. 120/- as meter checking fee was deposited by the complainants , copy of receipt for payment of Rs 120/- has also been placed on record , have also been denied by the opposite party even though the complainants have placed on record copy of application giving intimation to the opposite party regarding burning of meter Ex.C-3 and  the receipt of deposit of fee of Rs. 120/- Ex.C-4. However, the plea of the complainants that  the meter was got checked in the Lab  and according to the report of the Lab., no fault on the part of the complainants was found, is not tenable as the complainants have not placed on record any evidence in this regard . Moreover the opposite party has denied each and every averment made by the complainant.   However, the opposite party added the disputed amount of Rs. 75,250/- in the current consumption charges of the complainant  for the consumption of 689 units without issuing any prior notice to the complainant. The opposite party can charge the amount from the complainant in the current consumption bill only after giving prior notice to the complainant as per rule 124.1 of Sales Regulations and Supply Code. Here in this case the opposite party has not issued any prior notice before charging this amount from the complainant in the current consumption bill. Resultantly, the opposite party has violated the procedure as laid down in 124.1 of the Sales Regulations and Supply Code.

9.       Consequently the demand raised by the opposite party in the current consumption bill Ex.C-2 dated 23.11.2016 for Rs. 75250/- is not sustainable in the eyes of law , as such the same is hereby set-aside. However, opposite party can charge this amount from the complainant after following proper procedure i.e. after giving proper notice to the complainant under rule 124.1 of the Sales Regulations and Supply Code and after providing copy of the Half Margin to the complainant i.e. after giving full and proper opportunity to the complainant of being heard. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case , parties are left to bear their own costs. 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.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 9.8.2017