Complainant Jugal Kishore has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties regarding the correction of his record from the date when his meter was installed outside his house premises and accessing his bill according to rectified average and for installation of new meter. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony  alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is consumer of the opposite parties as he has got installed an electric meter in his house for domestic purpose bearing Account No.G62CF242441F. Serial no. of the said meter 13221, load 1.99 KW.  His electricity meter is not working properly due to some fault thereby the opposite party no.2 accessed his current electricity bill on average basis amounting to Rs.9690/-. On 17.06.2015 his electricity bill was assessed amounting to Rs.11,240/- in that regard he gave written complaint dated 25.06.2015 to S.D.O. P.S.P.C.L. Sub Division Dinanagar which was marked by SDO to Ashok Kumar JE. On checking by Lineman, Jugal Kishore reported by Ashok Kumar as “there are three meters in four in one box. On the box name of meters accounts nos.CF24/2441 and CF24/2174 had been written interchanged by the concerned Contractor and reading of the abovesaid meter is also interchanged. When the concerned contractor installed these meters he has wrongly written these meter account number and due to that reason there is mistake in meter readings” then the opposite party no.2 rectified the amount of that electricity bill from Rs.11,240/- to Rs.260/-. The meter No.G62CF242174L is in the name of Kanwar Sawraj son of Kartar Singh resident of Taragarh Road Shankar Colony Near Octroi Dingnagar who is retired officer from P.S.P.C.L. Department. The opposite party no.2 only rectified that particular previous bill only. His meter was installed outside his house in the month of May or June 2014 and from that month his meter reading is interchanged. Before shifting his electric meter outside his house average electricity bill used to be in the range of Rs.1400/- to Rs.1600/-. Now the opposite parties sent bill amounting to Rs.9690/- on average basis on which he visited the opposite party on 6.10.2015 for rectify the bill amount but the concerned clerk of opposite party no.2 asked him to notify the date when the meters were shifted in the Alhmera box by Ashok Kumar JE. On 7.10.2015 he visited the office of JE Ashok Kumar of opposite party no.2 and requested him to notify the date. JE Ashok Kumar flatly refused to admit his genuine request. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 to 4 appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint with the intention to harass the opposite parties; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately and the present complaint is not maintainable as the complaint is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was submitted that the alleged report of Ashok Kumar JE is based on presumption. The reading of the electric meters of the opposite parties is recorded by the private contractors and not by the concerned JEs. The reading of electric meter was recorded on the basis of meter no’s and not on the basis of account no’s. So the question of interchange of reading of the account No.CF-24/2441 of the complainant with the account no.CF-24/2174 of opposite party no.5 does not arises. The perusal of consumption data solve the controversy in dispute as the complainant has paid the bill from June 2014 to October 2015 of 5062 units and the opposite party no.5 has paid the bill from the month of June 2014 to October 2015 of 7531 units. So the allegations of the complainant that he has paid the excess bill of the consumption of opposite party no.5 do not arise. The status of meter of the complainant is OK upto August 2015 which is in dispute on the basis of consumption of the same month of the previous year due to D code. It was further submitted that if electric meter’s Account no. of the complainant was changed with electric meter’s account no. of the opposite party no.5 even though it has no effect on the electric bills as reading is recorded on the basis of the meter nos not on the basis of account nos. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Opposite party no.5 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite party. On merits, it was admitted that meter No.G62CF2142174L is in the name of opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.      Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Inderjit Singh Cheema S.D.O. Ex.OP1 to 4/1 and copy of consumption data Ex.OP1 to 4/2 and closed the evidence.

7.     Counsel for the opposite party no.5 tendered into evidence affidavit of Kanwar Swaraj Singh Ex.OP-5/1 and closed the evidence.

8.      We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record along with that ignored to be produced to support/prove their respective ‘claims’ as duly pleaded by the present litigants in the light of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find the present complaint prompted on account of the impugned Electricity Consumption Bill Ex.C3 dated 17.06.2015 for Rs.11,240/- alleged as excessive by the complainant measured against his past ‘consumption’ and present ‘usage’ etc. The OP service provider instead of having the Meter ‘lab-tested’ for correctness and accuracy has simply procured the JE’s report on the complaint (Ex.C2) of 25.06.2015 itself to learn that the complainant’s Meter has been inter-changed with that of his neighbour OP5 to inter-alia exchange of the readings & subsequent electricity consumption. Somehow, the OP service providers corrected/moderated the impugned consumption Bill but refused to provide the requisite correctional ‘moderation’ from the date of the erroneous inter-se interchange of the Electric Meters in the multi-meter box. It is not understood as to how the OP Corporation has again started raising further Bills without having first fully ‘settled’ the accounts in the light of the ‘detected’ lapse of ‘inter-change’ of Meters. We do not find the ‘logic’ to be legally acceptable as forwarded/put forth by the OP service providers in the written reply and the accompanying affidavit in the matter of settlement of accounts upon detection of the lapse of identity interchange of the Meters. The OP Corporation was naturally desired to first settle the previous accounts in the wake of the presently detected anomaly. The matter in issue (rules & adopted plan/basis of calculation) i.e., raising the future impugned Bills (in accordance with its own Supply & Tariff Rules) has been vehemently ignored (by OP Corporation) to be satisfactorily explained in its ‘written reply’ as well as in its deposition (Affidavit Ex.OP1). The present situation vividly depicts the callous and unruly state of affairs at the OP2 office-level pertaining to raising & issuance of the consumption Bills upon its consumers and the callous/negligent attitude of the OP officials towards its customers. The Exhibits Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 fully corroborates the revealed deficiency in service on the part of the OP service providers. The rebuttal defense in which the OP have opted ‘refuge’ is still the more amusing. Instead of having ‘suo-moto’ moderated the entire excessive amount of the affected Bills as duly revealed vide Ex.C2 as a result of ‘internal inquiry’ these were still being contested and that too on flimsy and legally immature grounds. We accept the defense as put forth by the OP5 who has himself been a consumer but somehow has been ‘un-wittingly’ enjoined/involved in the present lis. Lastly, we hold the OP service providers ‘guilty’ of deficiency in service and thus liable to an adverse ‘award’ under the Act.

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the titled opposite parties 1 to 4 to suitably moderate the entire consumption Bills as drawn upon the complainant right from the date of shifting of the Electric Meters from the consumer’s residences to the common Meter Box Pole to the date of detection of the lapse and refund the surplus amount deposited by the complainant on these Bills besides to pay him Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for having caused un-necessary harassment to the complainant along with Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid.

10.         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)

February, 19 2016                                                                     Member

*MK*