Ajeet Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal charges of Rs.4338/- each in both the bills dated 13/2/2007 and 10/4/2007 and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience and loss of irrigation besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having domestic supply electric connection bearing account No SN-14/0056-YY connected load 1.73 in his name. The complainant is paying all the electricity consumption charges of the bills as and when received by the complainant and at present nothing on account of consumption charges is due against the complainant. The complainant received a bill issued on 13/2/2007 in which the opposite parties had charged an amount of Rs.4338/- as sundry charges illegally and unlawfully. On receipt of this bill he contacted opposite party No. 2 and inquired about the sundry charges, but the opposite party did not supply any detail, rather assured that the bill will be corrected within few days. So the complainant could not deposit the bill and was waiting for correction in the bill. The complainant struck to hallucination when he received the bill issued on 10/4/2007 in which again an amount of Rs.4338/- has been charged as sundry charges which are illegal, unlawful and against the instructions of the PSEB. No detail of the sundry charges has been given in the bills in question as required under the provisions of law. No notice or supplementary bill as required under the instructions of the PSEB has been served upon the complainant before charging of the amount as sundry charges which is illegal and unlawful. On receiving the bill issued on 10/4/2007 the complainant again visited the office of opposite party no. 2 and contacted the AEE and asked to correct the bills in question but this time the AEE flatly refused to do so and asked that this is the fault of computer and he can do nothing and the complainant had to deposit the full amount of the bills in dispute otherwise his connection will be disconnected. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is not conductive rather it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part which harassed the complainant for which he claims Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 26-4-2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. B.B.Khurana Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the opposite parties have constituted various Disputes Settlement Committees to settle the disputes between the parties but the complainant has not put his case before the said committee, as such the present complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is without merit and cause so is liable to be dismissed. On merits the opposite parties submitted that it is correct that opposite parties have issued a bill dated 13/2/2007 for Rs.4338/- as sundry charges. These charges are for less average charges from period 9/04 to 7/06. As per conditions of supply under Section 73.1.2 the opposite parties are entitled to charge this amount. The complainant did not deposit the amount intentionally. It is also correct that the opposite parties issued bill dated 10/4/2007 to the complainant for Rs.4338/- as sundry charges. Full details of the sundry charges has been provided but the complainant did not deposit the amount. So the subsequent bills contain the same charges again. This amount is not illegal and unlawful. No threat of disconnection orally or in writing has been issued to the complainant. So there is no deficiency in service. The opposite parties has not caused any mental tension or harassment to the complainant so he is not entitled to any compensation or litigation expenses. So the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of bills Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Amarjit Singh Gill AE PSEB Sub Urban Sub Division Faridkot Ex.R-1, copy of MCO Ex.R-2, copy of letter Ex.R-3, copy of details of charges Ex.R-4, copies of Ex.R-5 to Ex.R-15 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties are not entitled to recover unlawful charges of Rs.4338/- each on the bill dated 13/2/2007 and 10/4/2007 as sundry charges. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the amount of Rs.4338/- being less average charges from 9/04 to 7/06 is liable to be recovered from the complainant. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the opposite parties have charged impugned amount on the basis of load factor.<br /> 11. The opposite parties have not taken the reading of the meter. They had been charging the tariff on average basis as per the rules and regulations of the PSEB. The opposite parties are bound to change defective meter immediately. If they have not done so for years together then they are not entitled to recover the tariff on load basis. The opposite parties cannot be given benefit of their own wrong. As per Sales Regulations for Supply of Electric Energy to the Consumer 1999 Page-83 if the energy meter is found to be defective, dead stop or burnt then on receipt of the report regarding meter becoming dead stop or burnt it should be promptly replaced and necessary inquires should be conducted. Meter alongwith the report should be forwarded to the ME lab for further action. Opposite parties in violation of the above noted instructions who are bound to replace the meter immediately have not done so but had been charging tariff on the basis of average consumption from the meter for years together. So plea of the opposite parties to charge tariff on load basis is illegal. <br /> 12. Since the opposite parties have not taken the readings from the meter if it was working properly or they have not replaced the meter if it was defective so opposite parties are not entitled to recover the tariff on load basis. So there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. <br /> 14. In view of these facts and circumstances the complaint is accepted. The opposite parties are directing to withdraw the demand of Rs.4338/- charged vide bill dated 13/2/2007 as sundry charges and allowances and also withdraw the amount of Rs. 4338/- vide bill dated 10/4/2007 as sundry charges and allowances within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. If any amount already deposited by the complainant with regard to the amount of Rs.4338/- charged in the bill dated 13/2/2007 as sundry charges and allowances and with regard to the amount of Rs. 4338/- charged in the bill dated 10/4/2007 as sundry charges and allowances, the same shall be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in the subsequent bills of the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 25/9/2007<br />