Pammi Arora has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to deduct the amount of Rs.17930/- from the bill dated 7/9/2006, to allow the complainant to deposit the bill in monthly installments of Rs.4500/- each, to take action against the erring officials of the opposite parties who did not issue and deliver bills to the complainant, and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and inconvenience with costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in their complaint that account No. BW-23/0058 is in the name of complainant. This connection is an NRS connection and is installed in Beauty Clinic being run by the complainant for earning her livelihood, so she is the consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant had obtained this connection in the month of September 2004 after depositing security amount of Rs.9300/- vide receipt No. 552 dated 4/8/2004. When the complainant did not receive any bill for about 6 months after the installation of said connection, the husband of the complainant informed the opposite party No. 1 that no bill was being issued pertaining to the above mentioned account. The opposite party No. 1 noted down this fact and assured that the bill would be issued within 15 days but even then the complainant did not receive any bill. He again approached the opposite party and informed about the non delivery of the bill but again the bill was not issued. Ultimately the complainant had submitted an application dated 6/10/2005 to the opposite party No. 1 requesting for issuance of the bills but even then the opposite party did not care to issue and deliver bills. The complainant again submitted an application dated 4/9/2006 for issuing bills but again the opposite party did nothing regarding it. On 7/9/2006 the husband of the complainant again approached the opposite party and insisted to issue the bill then the opposite party directed the concerned clerk to immediately prepare the bill and deliver to the husband of the complainant. The dealing Clerk issued a bill dated 7/9/2006 for Rs.46,618/- for the consumption of 6782 units. The husband of the complainant calculated the and it was found that Rs.17,930/- were excess in the bill. The husband of the complainant enquired from the RA of opposite parties who explained that Rs.9630/- has been charged for extra load and regarding the remaining amount no explanation could be forwarded by the RA and even by the opposite party No. 1. So the husband of the complainant requested to deduct the illegal amount from the bill and allow the complainant to deposit the actual amount of Rs.28,688/- which amounts comes after multiplying the consumption of 6782 units with Rs.4.23/- as NRS rate per unit but the opposite party declined the request of the husband of the complainant and threatened that if the whole amount is not deposited then the electricity connection will be disconnected. The complainant was informed by the opposite parties that the connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite parties and the load was calculated as Lamps 39- Load 3.12 @ 80 Watts per lamp, plugs 19- Load .56, fans 8- Loan .80 @ 100 Watts per fan and AC 2- Load 5.00 @ 2500 Watts per AC. This calculation of the load is absolutely wrong because all the lamps installed at the premises of the complainant are the tube lights which consumed only 40 watts per tube and out of this 5 tubes are of 20 watts each as these are of 2 feet long tubes instead of 4 feet long. Regarding the calculation of load of both the ACs which is 1850 watts each and as per instruction of the PSEB the mark plate of every reputed company AC is to be taken into consideration while calculating load. So the allegation of excess load is false and the load of the complainant is as per sanction. The alleged checking was not done in the presence of the complainant nor any notice of the checking was ever issued and delivered to the complainant. It is sheer carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties not to issue the bill in time and it amount to trade malpractice to add illegal amount of Rs.17,930/- in the bill dated 7/9/2006. It is impossible for the complainant to deposit such a huge amount in lump sum however the complainant is ready to pay the actual amount of Rs.28,688/- in installments. The complainant and her husband face harassment, inconvenience and mental agony 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 26-9-2006 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 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 complainant does not come under the definition of consumer. The complainant is using the electricity connection for commercial purpose. A beauty parlour is being run through the electricity connection under the name and style of Bindya Beauty Parlour near Jain School, Faridkot. So the complaint is not maintainable on account of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. On merits the opposite parties admitted that the present connection is being run in the name of the complainant. It is correct that this connection is an NRS connection but is wrong that the parlour is being run by the complainant for her livelihood. The electricity bills are issued as per rules and regulations of the PSEB and it takes minimum period of 6 months for the release of first electricity bill after the electricity connection is installed at a place. So in the present case the first electricity bill was issued to the complainant on 11/1/2005 when the complainant approached the opposite parties. The bill was handed over to the husband of the complainant but the complainant or her husband did not deposit the said bill. Again the second bill was handed over to the husband of the complainant but the complainant and her husband did not deposit the amount which was found due and recoverable by the opposite parties from the complainant on account of consumption of energy. The opposite parties issued bill dated 7/9/2006 for a sum of Rs.46,618/- to the husband of the complainant but they were not deposited this bill. It is wrong that the amount of Rs.17,930/- was found excessive in the bill. The bill has been prepared according to the rules and regulations of the Board. The connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 22/12/2004 and during checking it was found that the sanctioned load of the complainant was 5.720 KW but at the spot the load to the tune of 9.48 KW was installed and running at the spot. The said amount has been charged on account of excessive and unauthorised load being consumed by the complainant. The checking was done in the presence of the complainant. The checking report was prepared at the spot. The complainant refused to receive the copy of checking report. It is wrong that the calculations as done by the opposite parties are wrong. The calculations are purely made according to the rules and regulations of the Board. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 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 her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 7/9/2006 Ex.C-2, copy of application dated 6/10/2005 Ex.C-3, copy of application dated 4/9/2006 Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 24/8/2004 Ex.C-5, copy of bill dated 8/9/2004 Ex.C-6, affidavit of Mangat Arora Ex.C-7, affidavit of Yog Raj Ex.C-8, photographs Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 and closed her evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Charanjit Singh Mann Ex.R-1, copy of checking report Ex.R-2, copy of MCO Ex.R-3, copies of bills Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-11, affidavit of Jagtar Singh officiating SDO PSEB Faridkot Ex.R-12 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 demand put forth by the opposite parties for payment of Rs.17,930/- vide bill dated 17/9/2006 alongwith amount of Rs.46,618/- is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the opposite parties have not issued bills even from the date of the releasing of the electric connection. The premises is being used for earning his livelihood by the complainant. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the opposite parties have been issuing the bills from time to time which was not being paid by the complainant. The premises in question is being used for running a Beauty Parlour which tentamounts to use of electric connection for commercial purpose. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. <br /> 11. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the excessive load calculated by the opposite parties is illegal. <br /> 12. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the load has been calculated in accordance with rules and regulations of the PSEB. <br /> 13. From the perusal of the checking report dated 22/12/2004 Ex.R-2 it is made out that the complainant have reported to the opposite parties that they have not received any bill so far from the date of the release of the electric connection. The opposite parties still have not taken pain to issue the bills to the complainant though the opposite parties had been making mention about issuance of the bills in their ledger entried Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-11 but the complainant have not received any bill. So the complainant was unable to make payment of the amounts in question. The opposite parties may have been charging surcharge on the outstanding electricity bills. <br /> 14. From the perusal of the checking report Ex.R-2 dated 22/12/2004 it is made out that sanctioned load is 5.720 KW. The connected load has been calculated to be 9.48 KW. There is variation about the calculations of the load of the different electric appliances from schedule-1 and the Annexure-1 of the PSEB with regard to application and agreement Form-cum- Consumer Case for release of General Service connection (Category : DS/NRS). So the learned counsel for the opposite parties have failed to make out if connected load calculations are 9.48 KW. The complainant have not disputed fitting of the electric appliances mentioned in the checking report Ex.R-2. Since there is a variation of calculations in load from the rules and regulations of the opposite parties so the complainant has a right for correct calculations of the load as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. <br /> 15. Since the complainant has specifically pleaded that Beauty Parlour is being run by the complainant for carrying her livelihood in the premises where electric connection has been sanctioned by the opposite parties. So there being no rebuttal to this fact the complaint in the present form is maintainable. <br /> 16. From the above noted facts and circumstances it is made out that bill issued by the opposite parties was based on the actual reading with them to which there can be no dispute in between the parties. However for non payment of the bills the opposite parties might have claimed surcharge on the outstanding amount. Since the complainant has not received any bill so the opposite parties cannot recover surcharge on the outstanding amounts calculated by the opposite parties from time to time. <br /> 17. In view of the facts and circumstances the complaint is partly accepted and partly dismissed as the demand put forth by the opposite parties to the tune of Rs.46,618/- as a bill is not illegal. It may be excessive which can be got calculated in accordance with law. <br /> 18. In these circumstances the opposite parties are directed to prepare bills on the basis of actual consumption mentioned in the ledger entries Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-11 from the very first bill in the next subsequent bills. The surcharge for non payment of the bills are not be added as complainant have not received bills, if she would have received the bills she must have paid the same. The complainant is bound to make payment of the calculated amount on the actual consumption of the bills but without surcharge if ever has been added by the opposite parties in these bills. If they have not claimed surcharge in the subsequent bills from the original bill then the complainant shall have to make payment of the consumption of the electricity on the basis of the reading of the meter. <br /> 19. The checking report Ex.R-2 is held to be illegal in respect of the connected load. The opposite parties are required to calculate the load on different electric appliances mention in the writing Ex.R-2 on the basis of PSEB Application and Agreement Form-cum- Consumer Case for Release of General Service Connection (Category: DS/NRS) Annexure-1 and Schedule-1 with regard to number of capacity of lamps. However if any other rules and regulations were applicable at the time of issuance of the bills or at the time of the preparation of the checking report then they are to calculate the same on the basis of these rules and regulations. They are required to make mention of rules and regulations by calculating the connected load. The complainant shall have to pay amount so calculated afresh as per rules and regulations of the Punjab State Electricity Board. No order as to costs. 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: 18/9/2007<br /> <br />