Shinder Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to restore the AP tubewell connection and to pay Rs.70,000/- 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 a AP tubewell connection bearing account No. RG-1322. The complainant has paid all the electricity consumption bills regarding the above said tubewell connection uptill 1/9/2006 and thereafter the electricity is being supplied free of costs to the AP connections and nothing is due towards the complainant. On 31/3/2007 the employees of the opposite parties came to the fields of the complainant and disconnected the connection of the complainant without disclosing any reason. After that the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 so many times with the request to disclose the reason for disconnection of the electric connection and further to restore the electric connection of the tubewell of the complainant, but the opposite party No. 2 at first kept the matter linger on with one pretext or the other and later on the opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to restore the connection of the complainant which amounts to clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties and is unfair trade practice. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant and the complainant also suffering the loss of irrigation due to disconnection of his AP tubewell connection so he claim Rs.70,000/- as compensation besides 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 10-4-2007 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. M.S.Brar Advocate and filed written reply in which they submitted that the complainant paid the electricity bills on the basis of the minimum charges. The account of the complainant was audited by the audit party vide half margin No. 31 dated 7/12/2005 and overhauled the account on the basis of load factor and demand factor. The connected load of the complainant is 3.89 KW. In this way the consumption on the basis of load factor and demand factor of the complainant was overhauled for the period 10/2002 to 9/2004 comes to Rs.33,580/-. The already charged amount on the basis of minimum bill for this period was Rs.11,743/- the balance recoverable amount for this period is Rs.21,837/-. A registered notice vide memo No. 412 dated 23/3/2006 was issued to the complainant by giving the full details of the amount charged and reason for charging the amount was also explained to the complainant. The complainant failed to deposit the amount. As per rules of the PSEB if the assessed amount is not deposited on the basis of the registered notice the amount is to be charged through sundry charges and allowance register, so this amount was charged through sundry charge and allowance register. As the consumer failed to deposit the assessed amount of PSEB the permanent disconnection order was issued vide No. 003/17945 dated 29/12/2006. The permanent disconnection order was effected on 28/3/2007. As the complainant failed to deposit the amount so the question of restoring the connection does not arise. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not caused any mental tension and harassment to the complainant so he is not entitled for any compensation and litigation expenses. 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, copy of the pass book Ex.C-2, reply of notice dated 10/4/2006 Ex.C-3, receipt register dated 18/4/2006 Ex.C-4, bill Ex.C-5 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Tara Singh AE Golewala Sub Division Ex.R-1, copy of PDCO Ex.R-2, copy of half margin Ex.R-3, copy of letter No. 412 dated 23/3/2006 Ex.R-4, copy of sundry charge and allowance register Ex.R-5, meter blank Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-7, copy of ledger Ex.R-8 to Ex.R-32 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 disconnection of AP electric connection of the complainant is illegal. The opposite parties are not entitled to recover any amount from the complainant.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that complainant has not deposited amount of Rs.21,837/- calculated on the basis of revised tariff calculated as per the load factor then that of the average consumption of units. They have rightly disconnected electric connection. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the complainant has filed reply Ex.C-3 to letter No. 412 dated 23/3/2006 of the opposite parties in which they have put forth demand of Rs.21,837/-. The complainant took plea in that reply sent to the opposite parties that the demand of PSEB is time barred. It has been demanded on the basis of presumption that the meter is defective. It is wrong that the meter is defective or dead. No official of the PSEB ever declared the meter of the complainant as defective. So charges of average by audit is illegal against the instructions of the PSEB. The bills rendered to the complainant have declared the meter OK. So notice served to the complainant is illegal who is based on without verifying the record of the connection of the complainant. <br /> 11. The opposite parties have placed on the file copy of the meter reading book Ex.R-6. On 27/4/2002 the meter reader was 7418 at the latest the meter reading at the time of calculations was also 7418. No where meter has been declared defective by the opposite parties at least in presence of the complainant. If the opposite parties have not recorded correct reading of the meter then no fault can be found with the complainant. If the meter ever was defective then 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 as per para no. 4 is illegal. <br /> 12. Opposite parties as per Section VII page 235 of the Sales Regulations para 121.3.1 were required to give 15 days notice before disconnection to the complainant. Grace period was also required to be given before physical disconnection of general consumers to the extent of 21 days. <br /> 13. 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.21,937/- charged vide letter No. 412 dated 23/3/2006 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 stands unpaid prior to making of the above noted demand then this amount should be adjusted in that amount. Now a days there is tariff charging on AP connections so remaining amount should be reimbursed to the complainant. The connection of the complainant if so far has not been restored it should be restored immediately. 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