Raj Mohmad has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to record the correct reading as per meter installed at the spot and to prepare fresh bill according to actual consumption and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that electric connection No. SP-82/0320 installed in his premises at village Ajit Gill under the Jaitu Sub Division PSEB Jaitu with sanctioned load of 7.96 KW. The meter number is 2881018. The complainant has been paying the electricity bills as assessed and demanded by the opposite parties from time to time and nothing is due towards the complainant. He was astonished to see bill dated 15/7/2006 for a sum of Rs.6448/- showing the reading of 12490 as old and 14076 as new. The date of recording the old reading is shown as 24/5/2006 whereas the date of recording the new reading is shown as 23/6/2006. But at the spot on 21/7/2006 the meter was showing the reading of 11524. On receipt of said bill the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 and requested to get the reading verified at the spot and to correct the bill accordingly. The opposite party had been putting of the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately the complainant got served a legal notice dated 21/7/2006 through his counsel Sh. Naib Singh Sangha Advocate requesting the opposite party No. 3 to correct the bill according to new reading and get the same deposited as per correct bill prepared on the basis of actual reading within 7 days of the receipt of notice. But with no effect. After that the complainant received bill issued on 18/8/2006 in which again the old reading has been shown as 14076 and the new reading as 15668. The date of recording of old reading is shown as 23/6/2006 and that of the new reading is 26/7/2006. On receipt of this bill the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 3 but he did not listen to the complainant and then he approached opposite party no. 2 and he got a written request dated 18/8/2006 scribed to check he meter at site and the same was received vide receipt no. 10750 dated 22/8/2006 and was marked to RA/ Tejpal Singh JE directing him to check and discuss on 23/8/2006. But no official of the PSEB has yet come to check the meter at site and to record the actual consumption. The concerned Meter Reader either is showing excessive reading intentionally for some favour or is filling the same by sitting in the office. The complainant is not liable to pay the bills issued on 15/7/2006 for Rs.6448/- and bill issued on 18/8/2006 for Rs.12920/-. The complainant again approached the opposite party No. 3 and requested that he is ready to pay the electricity charges based on actual consumption recorded by meter installed in his premises who flatly refused to accede the request of the complainant rather threatened to deposit the entire bill dated 18/8/2006 with surcharge otherwise be ready to face disconnection and removal of meter to destroy the actual consumption of electricity. So it is deficiency in service and trade mal practice. The act and conduct of the opposite parties have caused great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which he is entitled to Rs.20,000/- 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 21-9-2006 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, so the complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that the present electricity connection is installed in the premises of the complainant. But the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The bill in question has been issued according to the reading taken by the Meter Reader at the spot. It is true that the old reading was 12490 and the new reading which was taken on 23/6/2006 was 14076. On 26/7/2006 the Meter Reader was taken reading as 15668 units. The bills are issued according to rules and regulations and after taking reading at the spot. The notice as served is based upon wrong facts and contents are not true. It is wrong that no official of the department went to check the matter at the spot. The representation so given by the complainant was marked to the concerned J.E and J.E visited the spot and found that the meter was working properly and the bills were being issued according to the reading. The complainant has not come with clean hands and is misleading this Forum. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties has not caused any mental tension to the complainant. 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 affidavit of Bagha Singh son of Kartar Singh Ex.C-1, his affidavit Ex.C-2, copies of bills dated 15/7/2006, 17/5/2006, 17/3/2006, 16/12/2005 and 15/7/2005 are Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7, copy of notice Ex.C-8, copy of application 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 Major Singh AEE Ex.R-1, copy of reading record Ex.R-2 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 excessive bill dated 15/7/2006 worth Rs.6448/- and excessive bill dated 18/8/2006 for Rs.12,920/- are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant. The opposite parties had been harassing the complainant mentally and economically even during the pendency of this complaint. The opposite parties had not been recording actual consumption of the electricity from the given reading of the meter. They had been sending the bills on the basis of the presumption of the excess reading of the meter. <br /> 9. The opposite parties during pendency of this complaint have disconnected electric connection which remained unoperative for about 7 months due to which he suffered heavy losses economically, mentally and physically. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the impugned bills are legal and binding upon the complainant. The reading was taken by the Meter Reader at the spot. The electric connection was disconnected for want of payment of subsequent bills from the complainant. <br /> 11. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the present complaint was presented in this Forum on 19/9/2006 and the opposite parties appeared through their counsel on 18/10/2006. On 2/11/2006 written statement was not filed, on 13/11/2006 again written statement was not filed so opposite parties had to be burdened with costs of Rs.100/- and ultimately written statement was filed on 30/11/2006. This is the date when the opposite parties before filing of the written statement have disconnected electric connection of the complainant which is evident from the application dated 30/11/2006 moved by the complainant. In this application the complainant alleged that action against Amrik Singh JE and one another official of the PSEB who have disconnected the electric connection of the complainant on 20/11/2006 though the complainant had already deposited the half of the amount in dispute as ordered by the Forum on 21/9/2006. The complainant alleged that he had no other source of income to meet both ends meal. He and his family is dependent upon the income of the running of the Atta Chakki. The complainant have suffered heavy loss. In reply to this application the opposite parties have taken plea that the connection has not been disconnected and same is still working. The complainant had not deposited the electricity bills for the subsequent months for which there is stay. <br /> 12. The opposite parties have not placed on the file subsequent bills which stood unpaid during the pendency of this complaint. <br /> 13. The complainant again moved an application on 8/1/2007. The complainant alleged that JE Sucha Singh and another employee of the PSEB alongwith Amrik Singh JE have disconnected the electric connection of the complainant on 20/11/2006 in the presence of the complainant. On 30/11/2006 application was moved in the Forum. The JE and his companions repeatedly threatened the complainant that Amrik Singh JE have already disconnected the electric connection and they shall removed the electric meter, when complainant told them that he has been granted stay by the Forum then they ignoring the stay order of the Forum and have threatened the complainant to remove the meter. The complainant was being harassed by the high handedness of the opposite parties. The complainant have no source of income so action should be taken against them and they be restrained from removing the meter. They are disobeying the orders of the Forum. <br /> 14. In reply to this application the opposite parties took plea that connection has not been disconnected and same is still working. Complainant has not deposited the payment for the subsequent bills for which there is no stay. The complainant has been called upon time and again to deposit the bill but he failed to do so. <br /> 15. From the perusal of the file it is made out there there is no record of intimation to have been given to the complainant for depositing of the subsequent bills. <br /> 16. The complainant being harassed by the opposite parties again had to move an application on 30/1/2007 for taking action against Amrik Singh JE and 2/3 other officials. The complainant alleged that his electric connection was illegally disconnected by the opposite parties on 20/11/2006. In this regard the application was moved by the complainant on 30/11/2006 but no action has been taken. The opposite parties are threatening repeatedly to the complainant to remove the electric meter. On 29/1/2007 Amrik Singh JE and other officials of the PSEB removed the electric meter from the premises of the complainant by threatening that whatsoever complainant could do can do it. He again harm Amrik Singh and others. Complainant told them that during pendency of the complaint they could not remove electric meter still they have removed the meter and they have handed over the receipt of the same. Complainant has suffered loss of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/-. In reply to this application the opposite parties took plea that the complainant have not deposited electricity bills for the subsequent months for which there is no stay. The complainant has been called upon time and again to deposit the bills but he has failed to do so. The opposite parties have full respect of the orders passed by the Forum. In this reply also the opposite parties have not specifically mentioned whether they have disconnected electric connection or they have removed the meter.<br /> 17. The receipt given by the opposite parties at the time of the removal of the meter on 29/1/2007 makes out that TDCO No. 169/48715 was effected on 17/10/2006. The PDCO was effected at Serial No. 182/48715, no date has been mentioned. At the time of the removal of the meter on 29/1/2007 the reading of the meter has been shown to be 020525 flymer. The latest reading was taken by the opposite parties on 29/8/2006 giving reading of 19797. So within about 5 months the meter has shown consumption of 728 units, so per month consumption of units comes to about 145 units. At the most as per allegations of the complainant connection was disconnected on 20/11/2006 so for 3 months average of one month comes to about 243 units, so it is held that the reading was not being taken correctly. This meter has not been produced in the Forum. This meter appears to have been removed by the opposite parties just to conceal wrong readings of the meter. They have removed the meter after disconnection of the electric connection in a hasty manner. So adverse inference is to be drawn from these activities of the opposite parties. The plea of the complainant to the effect that excessive wrong readings were being taken by the opposite parties appears to be plausible. The electric connection was disconnected before filing of written statement so it can be said that the opposite parties were annoyed from the injunction order passed by the Forum in favour of the complainant. In such like circumstances it is held that the latest reading has not been got noted to the complainant. It also have not been brought on the file by the opposite parties. So it makes out that last reading even was not 20525 to the knowledge of the complainant. <br /> 18. The complainant has moved an application Ex.C-9 on 18/8/2006 to Senior Executive Engineer PSEB Jaitu under the subject the meter installed in the premises of the complainant was giving more reading and it should be changed. The complainant have made averments in this application that the meter installed earlier in the premises of the complainant was correctly recording the consumption of electricity since about 10/12 months, the meter have been changed. New meter has been installed which is giving more reading. He has moved an application to S.D.O. earlier but no action was taken so spot should be inspected. He also was ready to get the check meter installed for checking the running of the meter. This application was marked to RA Sh. Tejpal Singh for checking and discussion. The opposite parties neither have checked the meter nor have changed the meter, rather they have removed the meter on the allegations of non payment of the bills. It appears the last reading noted on the TDCO is wrong. No action has been taken by the opposite parties on the representation of the complainant, he has to file this complaint on 19/9/2006 in this Forum. <br /> 19. Complainant also has served legal notice Ex.C-8 upon the opposite parties on 21/7/2006 as per pleadings and averments made by the complainant. No reply to this notice was given by the opposite parties. <br /> 20. Henceforth in such like circumstances the opposite parties can recover from the complainant on the basis of actual consumption of units uptill 29/1/2007 when meter was removed with the reading of 20525 to make record of opposite parties up to date. The opposite parties are entitled to receive the sundry charges and surcharge on the bills from 15/7/2005 the bill Ex.C-7 uptill the reading of 20525. <br /> 21. Since the opposite parties have illegally disconnected electric connection during the pendency of this complaint and complainant has been harassed time and again, so the complainant is entitled to receive damages to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. The excess charges whatsoever has been made by the opposite parties are held to have been compensated in the above noted amount of Rs.30,000/-. Since the impugned bills are matter of record so the opposite parties have a right to receive the amount of Rs.12,920/- as per bill dated 18/8/2006 and subsequent bills uptill 20525 units. So with regard to these bills the complaint is dismissed. So that no complicacy in calculations is involved as the complainant can be compensated with the above noted amount of Rs.30,000/- with regard to surcharge and sundry charges etc. if any. Whatsoever amount has been deposited by the complainant should be adjusted in the outstanding bills. So the complaint is partly accepted and partly dismissed. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as damages within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay interest on the amount of Rs.30,000/- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the decision of the complaint till the realization of the amount. 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: 19/9/2007<br />