Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh. M.S. Brar counsel for the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> DHARAM SINGH PRESIDENT<br /> Virinder Pal Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal and unlawful sundry charges of Rs.37,539/- raised vide bill dated 30.7.2007 and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience 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 domestic electric connection bearing account No. CR-45/0762 with a sanctioned load of 19.95 KWs. The complainant is paying all the electricity consumption bills as and when received by the complainant and nothing on account of consumption charges is due against him. The complainant has received a bill issued on 30.7.2007 in which the opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs.37,539/- as sundry without giving any detail which is quite illegal, unlawful and against the rules and instructions of the PSEB. After receipt of bill the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and inquired about the detail of sundry charges from the R.A but neither R.A. nor any other concerned official gave any detail of the sundry charges. No notice or supplementary bill has been served upon the complainant before charging the amount as sundry which is mandatory as per provisions and instructions of the PSEB. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 so many times to withdraw the illegal and unlawful charges of Rs. 37,539/-, but the opposite party No. 2 did not agree with the complainant, rather has threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant in case the amount as charged is not deposited immediately which amounts to clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which the complainant claims a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties, besides above the complainant also claims a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses from the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.8.2007 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 admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. It is also admitted that the bill dated 30.7.2007 was issued in which the amount of Rs.37,539/- was charged. The amount has been charged for the period 7/2004 to 5/2005. The meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No. 173/48637 dated 25.8.2003 and another MCO No. 94/59407 dated 13.4.2005 was issued vide which the second meter was changed and another meter was changed vide MCO No. 113/58509 dated 15.4.2006. All these meters were changed due to burnt meters of the complainant. Necessary inquiry is being conducted for detecting the reason of the burnt meter. The amount has been charged for the period 7/2004 to 5/2005 on the basis of consumption of the previous year of the consumer. While giving the refund, octroi charges were inadvertently charged excess. The correction of the excess amount of Rs.5884/- has already made vide sundry charges and allowances register No. 226/52/11. The amount of Rs.26,036/- is now due for the consumption for the period 7/2004 to 5/2005 and the balance amount is the current payment of the bill. When the complainant visited the office full detail of the amount was given and reason for charging the amount was also explained to him. While checking the account of the consumer it had come to the notice that while giving the refund of the octroi charges wrong calculation was made, so a refund of Rs.5884/- was given through the sundry charges and allowances register. The complainant demanded the copy of the charging of the amount of Rs.31,920/- which was given to him alongwith the copy of sundry charges and allowances register. The amount has been charged as per rules and regulations of the PSEB so the question of withdrawing the due amount does not arise. The complaint has been filed on false and fictitious grounds so the complainant is not entitled to compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. So the consumer is liable to pay Rs.26,036/- on account of consumption charges for the period 7/2004 to 5/2005 and he is also liable to pay the current bill of the consumption so the question to withdraw the amount does not arise. The complainant is not entitled to any other relief and complaint may 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 bill dated 30.7.2007 Ex.C-2, bill dated 27.7.2004 Ex.C-3, bill dated 1.10.2004 Ex.C-4, bill dated 3/12.2004 Ex.C-5, bill dated 30.1.2005 Ex.C-6, bill dated 29.5.2005 Ex.C-7, bill dated 30.7.2007 Ex.C-8, receipt dated 27.8.2007 Ex.C-9 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Daljit Singh Assistant Executive Engineer Ex.R-1, half margin No. 16 dated 14.5.2007 Ex.R-2, sundry charges and allowance Ex.R-3, sundry charges and allowance register Ex.R-4, sundry charges and allowance register Ex.R-5, reading record Ex.R-6 to Ex.R-8, Ex.R-9 MCO 170/48637, Ex.R-10 MCO 94/59407, Ex.R-11 MCO No. 58509 dated 11.6.2006. <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 complainant is not bound to make payment of Rs.37,539/- as sundry charges. This demand is illegal and unlawful.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that amount has been charged from July 2004 to May 2005 on the basis of average charges due to the change of the burnt meter. The inquiry is to be conducted as to in what circumstances the meter was burnt.<br /> 10. From the perusal of the file the bill Ex.C-2 shows payment of Rs.37,539/- to be made as sundry charges and allowances. The bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7 shows that opposite parties had been issuing bills on the basis of average consumption of the electricity which is evident from the above noted bills.<br /> 11. In affidavit Ex.R-1 Daljit Singh Assistant Executive Engineer City Sub Division, PSEB, Faridkot has substantiated pleadings of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have placed on the file inspection report Ex.R-2, the calculation Ex.R-3 and Ex.R-4. Even opposite parties have deducted amount of Rs.5884/- having been over charges by the opposite parties. This fact is evident from the investigation Ex.R-5. Calculations Ex.R-6 to Ex.R-8 shows correct consumption of electricity, Ex.R-9 to Ex.R-11 are the MCOs by way of which burnt meter had been changed. The opposite parties were justified by issuing bills on average basis during the period of burnt meter.<br /> 12. There is no illegality in the impugned bill. The complainant was having knowledge about burning of the meter and making payment of the bills on average basis. <br /> 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties to be provided to the complainant. So the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. However 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: 8.1.2008<br /> <br /> <br />