Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Rattan Singh 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 for his domestic use issued by Opposite Party  having account No.C38PN680121X and the complainant is using the said connection and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant is making the payment of all the bills raised on him for the electricity consumption from time to time, now the complainant received the bill dated 14.6.2016 from the Opposite Party  where the consumption of the electricity was shown to be consumed 1972 units and the amount of Rs.46,860/- was payable which was too exorbitant and against the real facts as he is making the payment upto date and no payment is due. The Opposite Party  reflected the amount of Rs.32,673/- as arrears in the said bill without providing any details which is against the provisions of the law and the principal of natural justice. Earlier the meter of the complainant was defective and was never given any report of ME lab by the Opposite Party  ever after the lapse of the statutory period and the Opposite Party  is threatening the complainant unnecessary and harassing the law abiding citizen. The complainant is time and again visiting the Opposite Party  to issue the correct bill and charge the amount of impugned bill as per the correct reading, but the Opposite Party  is threatening the complainant to disconnect his connection in case the complainant does not pay the alleged arrears. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party  in demanding the illegal demand from the complainant is an act of deficiency in services, 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 the compensation to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party  be directed not to demand the impugned bill dated 14.6.2016 and issue the correct bill.

b)      Opposite Party  be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant.

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

d)      Any other relief to which the complainant is entitled to under the law, equity, justice and fairplay be also awarded.       

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party  appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that there is no illegality in he demand impugned by the complainant in the present complaint. The amount impugned against the complainant is lawfully owned amount against the complainant on account of actual consumption made on eh electricity connection of the complainant and there is not included any penalty against the complainant. In fact bill dated 14.6.2016 relates to consumption period of 46 days from 4.9.2015 to 20.10.2015 for 5383 units for an amount of Rs.39,876/-. The complainant has failed to deposit this bill amount and thereafter, this amount was being carried forward as outstanding unpaid arrears in bills being issued for subsequent successive billing cycles. In fact on receipt of bill dated 20.10.2015 the complainant disputed the bill alleging fast running of the meter. On request of the complainant, his meter was removed vide job order for device replacement dated 2.11.2015 effected on 6.11.2015. Thereafter, the meter was got tested from ME Lab, where the meter was found recording accurate reading of the consumption of electricity. No defect or fast running or jumping of the meter was found in the ME Lab. As such the demand of the arrears qua the bill dated 20.10.2015 was raised in the bill dated 14.6.2016 with surcharge as per regulations of the Opposite Party  which is lawful and genuine. On merits, the Opposite Party  took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.       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  the copy of bill Ex.C2   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.Vipan Vig, SDO Commercial Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to OP4 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.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and contended that the complainant is having electric connection for his domestic use issued by Opposite Party  having account No.C38PN680121X and the complainant is using the said connection and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant is making the payment of all the bills raised on him for the electricity consumption from time to time, now the complainant received the bill dated 14.6.2016 from the Opposite Party  where the consumption of the electricity was shown to be consumed 1972 units and the amount of Rs.46,860/- was payable which was too exorbitant and against the real facts as he is making the payment upto date and no payment is due. The Opposite Party  reflected the amount of Rs.32,673/- as arrears in the said bill without providing any details which is against the provisions of the law and the principal of natural justice. Earlier the meter of the complainant was defective and was never given any report of ME lab by the Opposite Party  ever after the lapse of the statutory period and the Opposite Party  is threatening the complainant unnecessary and harassing the law abiding citizen. The complainant is time and again visiting the Opposite Party  to issue the correct bill and charge the amount of impugned bill as per the correct reading, but the Opposite Party  is threatening the complainant to disconnect his connection in case the complainant does not pay the alleged arrears. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party  in demanding the illegal demand from the complainant is an act of deficiency in services, 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 the compensation to the complainant.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party  has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that there is no illegality in he demand impugned by the complainant in the present complaint. The amount impugned against the complainant is lawfully owned amount against the complainant on account of actual consumption made on the electricity connection of the complainant and there is not included any penalty against the complainant. In fact bill dated 14.6.2016 relates to consumption period of 46 days from 4.9.2015 to 20.10.2015 for 5383 units for an amount of Rs.39,876/-. The complainant has failed to deposit this bill amount and thereafter, this amount was being carried forward as outstanding unpaid arrears in bills being issued for subsequent successive billing cycles. In fact on receipt of bill dated 20.10.2015 the complainant disputed the bill alleging fast running of the meter. On request of the complainant, his meter was removed vide job order for device replacement dated 2.11.2015 effected on 6.11.2015. Thereafter, the meter was got tested from ME Lab, where the meter was found recording accurate reading of the consumption of electricity. No defect or fast running or jumping of the meter was found in the ME Lab. As such the demand of the arrears qua the bill dated 20.10.2015 was raised in the bill dated 14.6.2016 with surcharge as per regulations of the Opposite Party  which is lawful and genuine and hence, the complaint be dismissed.

8.       From the entire above discussion particularly from the perusal of the documents produced by the parties,  we have come to the conclusion that the complainant received the bill Ex.C2 dated 14.6.2016 from the Opposite Party  where the consumption of the electricity was shown to be consumed 1972 units and the amount of Rs.46,860/- was payable which seems to be  exorbitant. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party  is that  in fact bill dated 14.6.2016 relates to consumption period of 46 days from 4.9.2015 to 20.10.2015 for 5383 units for an amount of Rs.39,876/-. The complainant has failed to deposit this bill amount and thereafter, this amount was being carried forward as outstanding unpaid arrears in bills being issued for subsequent successive billing cycles. It was further contended by the Opposite Party  that the complainant has failed to deposit this bill amount and thereafter, this amount was being carried forward as outstanding unpaid arrears in bills being issued for subsequent successive billing cycles. In fact on receipt of bill dated 20.10.2015 the complainant disputed the bill alleging fast running of the meter. On request of the complainant, his meter was removed vide job order for device replacement dated 2.11.2015 effected on 6.11.2015. Thereafter, the meter was got tested from ME Lab, where the meter was found recording accurate reading of the consumption of electricity. No defect or fast running or jumping of the meter was found in the ME Lab. As such the demand of the arrears qua the bill dated 20.10.2015 was raised in the bill dated 14.6.2016 with surcharge as per regulations of the Opposite Party  which is lawful and genuine. It is the case  of the complainant that no separate notice before adding this impugned amount has been issued to the complainant. On the other hand, Opposite Party  has also failed to produce on record any document to show that they ever issued any separate notice to the complainant before adding this amount in the current consumption bill of the complainant.     However, the Opposite Party could not charge this amount from the complainant in the electricity consumption bill without issuing separate 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.C2 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.46,860/- raised by the Opposite Party from the complainant vide bill Ex.C2 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 Rs.1000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.500/- 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