Ashok Kumar complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to deduct the illegal amount of Rs.11,774/- from the bill dated 26.5.2007 under the heading Sundry Charges and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience with costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is the consumer of opposite parties having domestic supply account No. KF-32/0052. The opposite parties issued a bill dated 26.5.2007 for Rs.14040/- payable on 8.6.2007 in which an amount of Rs.11,774/- has been added under the heading Sundry charges. This amount is illegal as the complainant is regularly paying all the bills and nothing is due towards the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 2 with the request to explain the cause of demanding the amount of Rs. 13814/- but the opposite party No.2 failed to give any satisfactory explanation. The complainant requested the opposite party to deduct the illegal amount from the bill and accept the bill for consumption of electricity for the relevant period but the opposite party refused to do so and threatened to disconnect electricity supply. It is deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of the opposite parties to demand illegal amount of Rs.11,774/-.The complainant had to suffer much inconvenience, harassment and mental agony due to demand of illegal amount for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 4.6.2007 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. Rajneesh Garg Advocate and filed written reply in which the opposite parties admitted that the amount of Rs.11,774/- has been added in the bill dated 26.5.2007 under the head Sundry charges but this amount is not illegal. It relates to the previous period from 12/05 to 12/06 pointed out by the audit party while auditing the account of the complainant. While auditing it was found that status of meter was 'D' during the month of 8/06 meaning thereby that the meter was reported defective during 8/06 and the meter reading was 806 and during the month 4/06 meter reading was 805 so the meter was defective since 4/06. Prior to this during 12/2005 the meter was replaced at the initial reading and basis of average for the purpose of overhauling the accounts of the complainant for the period meter remained defective was taken from 8/05 to 10/05 as per regulation No. 73.1.2 of Electricity Supply Act which came out to be 1130 units and the accounts from 12/2005 to 12/2006 were overhauled by the audit party and after making allowance for the amount paid by the complainant during the above period a sum of Rs.11,774/- were found recoverable from the complainant. Notice No. 1639 dated 1.6.2007 was issued to the complainant for making payment but he neither made the payment nor came forward with any objections against the said amount and the amount was presumed to have been admitted by the complainant. The opposite parties not threatened the complainant to disconnect the electricity supply as there was stay of disconnection issued by this Forum. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of the opposite parties. The amount charged is legal, lawful, valid and charged as per instructions of the Board. There is no question of complainant suffering any inconvenience, harassment or any mental agony, so he is not entitled for any compensation. So the complaint be dismissed with heavy 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, bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-14, copy of application dated 28.8.2006 Ex.C-15 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Balwinder Singh, SDO Ex.R-1, notice Ex.R-2, order report Ex.R-3 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 has submitted that the opposite parties have unlawfully and illegally put forth demand of Rs. 11,774/- as sundry charges in the bill dated 26.5.2007. The complainant is entitled to damages of Rs.20,000/- alongwith withdrawal of the demand mentioned above. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the notice was given to the complainant on 1.6.2007 with regard to demand of Rs.11,774/- as sundry charges. These charges have been calculated by the audit party on the basis of average consumption of electricity due to the non working of the electric meter.<br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that notice Ex.R-2 have been sent by the opposite parties to the complainant on 1.6.2007. In this notice the opposite parties have made mention with regard to compliance of rule 73.1.2 of Electricity Rules with regard to overhauling of the account of the complainant by the audit party of the opposite parties.<br /> 11. The detailed calculations have been produced on the file by the opposite parties in the writing Ex.R-3. As per these calculations the meter of the complainant was found to have become faulty in April 2006. Earlier in December 2005 the meter was changed and its reading started from figure one. Thereafter meter became faulty. The meter remained faulty from 6/05 to 10/05. On average basis the consumption of electricity was calculated to be 1130 units. Ultimately by deducting the amount already paid on average basis amount of Rs.11,774/- has been found payable by the complainant to the opposite parties. There is no illegality in the calculations. So simple denial from the calculations by the complainant is not sufficient. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as parties are making demand of the consumption of electricity from the complainant. <br /> 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint filed by the complainant being devoid of merits is dismissed. There is no order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. 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: 17.1.2008<br />