ORDER

Surinder Mohan (President)

1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Anoop Kumar is consumer of the opposite parties having electric connection bearing A/C No. X23BD371111H installed at his residence. Complainant received memo No. 2156 dated 17/12/2010 demanding Rs. 3296/- on account of allegedly replacing defective meter with a new meter. . That old meter was changed due to policy of opposite parties of changing old meters with new meters. Complainant went to office of opposite party No.2 asking for explanation why this illegal memo has been sent to him but the opposite parties flatly refused to give any explanation which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. They insisted upon the complainant to deposit the demanded amount failing which they will disconnect the electric connection. A prayer for directing the opposite party to quash impunged memo No.2156 dated 17/12/2010, to pay rs.30,000/- for causing mental tension and agony and harassment and to pay Rs.10000/- a cost of the complaint has also been made. The complaint is supported by an affidavit

2. In reply it is pleaded that meter of the complainant was running defectively. It was replaced vide MCO No.15 dated 7/11/09 effected on 20/1/10. At the time of replacing the meter, complainant had consumed some more units than the reading as noted by the meter reader during his periodical visits and as such memo NO.2156 for a sum of Rs.3296/- on account of difference of meter reading and actual consumption as on 26/1/10 after adjustment of payment already made was issued. The meter reader had taken reading on 27/11/09 as 12337. The amount referred in the memo is on account of actual consumption by the complainant from 27/11/09 to 26/1/10 the date of replacement.. The said reading was duly shown to representative of the complainant by replacing the meter and it was duly signed by the said representative of the complainant admitting the same as correct . It is denied that complainant ever visited the office of opposite party as alleged in the complaint. Other paras of the complaint have been denied and oppoiste parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In order to prove his case, Ex.C1 is affidavit of Anoop Kumar, Ex.C2 memo No.2156 dated 17/12/10.

4. In order to rebut this evidenceEx.OA affidavit of Rupinder Pal Singh AEE, Ex.O1 MCO dated 9/11/09 effected on 26/1/10, Ex.O2 mmo No.2156, Ex.O3 calculation sheet, Ex.O4 copy of ledger

5. We have heard counsel for both the parties and have gone through the file. The case of the complainant is that opposite parties have raised demand of Rs.3296/- on account of replacing defective meter with a new meter. Whereas it is case of the opposite parties that last reading was recorded on 27/11/09 by the meter reader and it was at No.12337. That since the meter was running defectively, the same was replaced vide MCO No.15 dated 9/11/09 which was effected on 26/1/10. It is further case of the opposite parties that abovesaid demand is for difference of units actually consumed by the complainant by adjusting earlier payment made by him. Opposite parties have furnished calculation sheet Ex.O3. However MCO was effected on 26/1/10 in the presence of one Veena. Opposite parties failed to clarify who is Veena. It could be family member of the complainant but her status is not mentioned in the MCO. At the same time opposite parties are not claiming any amount on account of replacing defective meter. The amount is claimed regarding actual consumption as it existed on 26/1/10, although complainant has not disclosed who is Veena but MCO reveals that meter reading on 26/1/10 was 13241 and earlier reading was 12337. Ex.O4 reveals reading of fifth billing cycle as 12337 with "D" code. Earlier reading of fourth billing cycle was also with "D" code. However, in the sixth billing cycle, the reading is mentioned as 12943 with "D"code but there is cutting on this reading. It was for the opposite party to explain why there is cutting at the time of recording sixth billing cycle. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as this reading of sixth billing cycle does not reconcile with the reading recorded on 26/1/10 which was 13241. Resultantly, complaint is accepted and memo No.2156 dated 17/12/10 is set aside and a direction is issued to the opposite party to issue fresh notice to Anoop Kumar by clarifying abovesaid anomaly . Parties are left to bear their own cost.

Let certified copies of order be communicated to the parties free of cost by registered post and file be consigned to record room.

Announced Shashi Narang Surinder Mohan

11.5.2011 Member President.