Complainant Harjit Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that his complaint may be allowed with costs and the opposite party may also be directed to correct the impugned bill of Rs.4920/- as per actual consumption in the interest of justice and fair play.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that he was having domestic electric connection in his house bearing No.G-41BF-290504A with connected load of 1 K.W. and he was paying its bills regularly to the opposite parties and nothing was due against him till date and as such he is consumer of the opposite party. It was pleaded that the normal consumption of the complainant was 200 to 300 units bimonthly and old meter of the complainant had been changed as it was old one in routine manner and replaced with a new meter. It was pleaded that opposite parties have issued the bill dated 29.12.2015 on the basis of average and raising a demand of Rs.4920/- which was payable upto 13.01.2016 as it was on the basis of actual consumption recorded by the old meter and new meter. It was further pleaded that complainant had been charged for upto 18416 reading of the old meter on 02.11.2015 and new meter recorded 84 reading on 29.12.2015 and the final consumption of the old meter was minus 18,416 and 84 minus initial reading of new meter. It was pleaded that average consumption will have to be charged only if the meter is sticky, dead stop, burnt or damaged but it was not so in the case of the complainant. It was also pleaded that opposite parties had been issued bimonthly bills and the bill amount was always in normal as per consumption and for a period of 1 year, bills had been issued in the following trend in on the basis of consumption.
Bill Dated. Period. Amount.
10.03.2015. 06.01.2015 to 10.03.2015. 860/-.
07.05.2015. 10.03.2015 to 07.05.2015. 1470/-.
01.07.2015. 07.05.2015 to 01.07.2015. 2640/-.
28.08.2015. 01.07.2015 to 28.08.2015. 2400/-.
02.11.2015. 28.08.2015 to 02.11.2015. 1860/-.
It was next pleaded that the services of the opposite parties were deficient due to following reasons; i) that previous to this impugned bill, opposite parties were used to issue the bill of much lower amount as stated above and the demand of the impugned amount was highly excessive and requires to be looked into and adjusted to the exact consumption of the power by the complainant. ii) Complainant approached the office of opposite party No.1 for correction of the impugned bill and requested them to raise the demand as per consumption as he is poor domestic consumer but the officials of the opposite parties had refused to correct the bill and they turned the deaf ears to the request of the complainant and threatening him to recover the amount in question and to disconnect his electric connection in case of non-payment of the impugned amount and due to this act of the opposite parties complainant had suffered mental torture and physical harassment from the hands of the opposite parties, hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. On merits, it was admitted that complainant was consuming the electricity from the opposite parties. It was stated that meter of the complainant had been changed and the bill had been issued on average basis. It was pertinent to mention here that when meter of the complainant had been changed the bill of ‘F’ Code had been issued and the computer automatically made the correction in the next bill which cannot be corrected manually and next bill was issued on the basis of actual consumption on units after rectifying the amount of previous bill. It was stated that opposite parties told the complainant regarding the same but inspite of this he filed the present complaint. The facts stated in the para no.4 of the reply are repeated as per para no.3 of the reply. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Counsel for the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with document Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 and 2 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Subash Chander SDO Ex.OP-1,2/1 along with document Ex.OP-1,2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2.
6. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides while adjudicating the present complaint.
7. From the pleadings and evidence on record we find that complainant is poor domestic consumer of the parties and was using electric supply of the opposite parties and paying the bills regularly. Old meter of the complainant was changed with new one. Opposite parties were used to issue electric bills to the complainant as per his normal consumption which was clear from the schedule given above. Opposite parties have issued the bill dated 29.12.2015 on average basis amounting to Rs.4920/- Ex.C-2 which was highly excessive than the previous bills but opposite parties did not give any details to the complainant regarding the impugned demand.
8. On the other hand opposite parties have alleged that when meter of the complainant was changed the bill of ‘F’ Code had been issued and the computer automatically made the correction in the next bill which cannot be corrected manually and next bill was issued on the basis of actual consumption but details regarding this have not been supplied by them for which complainant was asked to them but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.
9. From the above discussion we find that opposite parties did not give any details to the complainant regarding the impugned demand of Rs.4920/- raised in bill dated 29.12.2015. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that this complaint can be best disposed off by giving directions to the parties and hence we direct the opposite parties to issue the fresh notice regarding the impugned demand by giving all the details of the amount because consumer/complainant has every right to know what he is paying and why he is paying. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of orders.
- Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
MAY, 04, 2016 Member.
*YP*
