Complainant Kashmir Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that bill dated 07.04.2016 and 14.06.2016 be declared as null and void and opposite party may be directed to rectify the bills as per units consumed by him and penalty of Rs.10,000/- may also be imposed on account of mental pain along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the consumer of the opposite party as he is consuming the electricity since the institution of electricity connection without any fault and hindrance from his electricity meter connection No.G-43NF-520805A and he was paying all bills regularly qua the consumption of electricity. It was pleaded that previously a bill dated 07.04.2016 amounting to Rs.9,480/- was issued by the opposite party which was deposited by the complainant under the impression that said bill also include the consumption for the month of January. It was pleaded that complainant was astonished when he received the bill dated 14.06.2016 amounting to Rs.26,773/- and he consumed the electricity for 68 days. It was further pleaded that both the above mentioned bills dated 07.04.2016 and 14.06.2016 were illegal, null and void. It was also pleaded that complainant approached the opposite party and requested for correction of the bills as stated above but they refused to do so and informed him that his meter was replaced in the month of December, 2015 and later on, it was found that 3000 units more than the current reading and the present amount had been inserted in the bill dated 14.06.2016 as an arrears of previous meter. It was next pleaded that in the bill dated 07.04.2016 complainant had consumed only 715 units so the question of consumption of huge units does not arise at all and removed meter never got checked in the M.E. Lab. and imposition of such huge amount was result of mis-management of opposite party's official and as such it was a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It was pleaded that there is a settled proposition of law as well as the rules and regulation of the electricity department as mentioned in the sale regulation that before removing the meter written consent of the complainant must be obtained and informed him accordingly qua the reading of removed bill/meter. It was pleaded that status of the meter was coming normal/OK in the column of status meaning thereby there was no internal fault in the meter besides the load of the complainant was 2 K.W. being a domestic connection. It was further pleaded that complainant is agriculturist and is poor person and unable to deposit such huge amount and he also made written as well as oral requests for the rectification of the bills but his requests were declined and harassed him mentally, hence this complaint.

3. 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 complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and complainant had not come to the court with clean hands and concealed the material facts from this Ld. Forum and as such he could not take benefit of his own wrongs. On merits, it was stated that complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.9,380/- on 20.04.2016 and not Rs.9,480/-. It was stated that a bill dated 14.06.2016 amounting to Rs.26,773/- was issued to the complainant. It was further stated that a bill dated 15.10.2015 for consumption of 403 units amounting to Rs.2,760/- was issued to the complainant which was not paid by him and after it another bill dated 15.12.2015 for consumption of 217 units amounting to Rs.1,208/- was issued by the opposite party. It was also stated that a sum of Rs.3,080/- (Rs.2,760/- plus surcharge) was added in bill dated 15.12.2015 and as such a sum of Rs.1,208/- + Rs.3,080/- = Rs.4,288/- was worked out but complainant did not pay the said bill for Rs.4,288/- and the same was forwarded in the bill dated 16.02.2016. Opposite party again issued a bill dated 16.02.2016 amounting to Rs.32,310/- for the consumption of 3713 units and during this period meter of the complainant was replaced vide MCO No.1385436 dated 26.11.2015 on the report of meter inspector that meter was mechanical at site which was replaced with electronic meter. It was next stated that old meter was removed on reading 20880 and the last bill reading was 17796 units, so 20880-17796=3084 units and the new meter was installed on reading 1 and reading dated 12.2.2016 was 630 and consumption was 629 units and the total consumed units in this bill was 629+3084=3713 which was correct and the previous bill of Rs.4,288/- was also added in this bill and as such Rs.4,288/- + Rs.28,205/- = Rs.32,310/- was worked out on account of previous bill and consumption bill of 3713 units but complainant had failed to deposit the bill dated 16.02.2016 for Rs.32,310/- and the same was forwarded in the bill dated 07.04.2016. Opposite party again issued bill dated 07.04.2016 in which Rs.32,310/- was on account of previous bill and Rs.28,280/- as current bill were shown for consumption of 3798 units but in this bill Rs.28,205/- was inadvertently charged more which was reversed later on and only a sum of Rs.32,860/- was charged from the complainant through bill dated 07.04.2016 but he only paid Rs.9,380/- on 20.04.2016 out of Rs.32,860/- and the remaining amount of Rs.23,480/- was forwarded in the bill dated 14.06.2016 and in this bill current bill was Rs.3,262/- for 505 units and as such a sum of Rs.26,762/- was worked out. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 including copies of bills mark 'A' and mark 'B' and closed his evidence.

5. Counsel for the opposite party had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amardeep Singh Nagra S.D.O. Ex.OP-1 and copy of detail Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.

6. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties along with the incidental scope of adverse inference that may be judicially (though discretionarily & judiciously) drawn on account of some evidentiary documents that have been somehow omitted to be produced, in order to statutorily adjudicate the inter-se dispute (under the CP Act, 1986) prompting the present complaint. Admittedly, the complainant had been the holder of DS Electric Connection # G43NF520805A installed at his premises and has deposed having paid all his consumption charges on regular basis. However, he was shocked to receive the impugned Bill (Ex.C1) dated 14.06.2016 raising an arbitrary demand of Rs.26,773/- with accrued arrears sans any details and/or prior notice etc and that too in next succession to the duly paid Bill dated 07.04.2016 for Rs.9,480/- (sans any opportunity to get heard) giving prompt to the present consumer complaint. The complainant has satisfactorily/sufficiently proved his allegations vide his depositions (Affidavit Ex.Cw1/A) and accompanying impugned Bill Copy (Ex.C1) along with the copy of the Demand Draft (Ex.C2) of 07.09.2016 for Rs.13,385/- i.e., 50% of impugned Sum paid to the OP Corporation in compliance to the forum痴 interim orders of 10.08.2016.

7. The OP Corporation has stated in its defense vide its written statement (and as also deposed vide its affidavit Ex.OP1) that the complainant had not paid his Bills for Rs.2,760/ of 15.10.2015 and that culminated to Bill for Rs.4,288/- as of 15.12.2015. And, the same was added to the Bill dated 16.02.2016 for Rs.32,310/- that also included an arrear amount of Rs.28,205/- on account of Meter Changing vide MCO # 1385436 dated 26.11.2015 and the same were continued to be added to succeeding Bills. Somehow, the OP Corporation has omitted to produce the details of the Meter Replacement and how the amount of Rs.28,205/- escaped to be accounted for when the consumption was being charged on regular basis. The old meter reading has been apparently charged in the Bill of 15.10.2015 and 3713 units could not have been consumed up to 26.11.2015 i.e., in 41 days and that too when the consumption Bill for Rs.4,288/- was also raised on 15.12.2015 and that included the actual consumption up to that date and moreover the complainant had admittedly deposited Rs.9,380/- on 20.04.2016 and again Rs.13,385/- on 07.09.2016 and he has not been proved to be liable to pay old Meter arrears of Rs.28,205/-.

8. Thus, we find that by paying Rs.9,380/- on 20.04.2016 (as has been duly admitted by the OP Corporation), the complainant has completely paid (in totality) all his consumption charges/bills up to 07.04.2016 since his liability to pay for the old Meter Reading could not be proved on records of present proceedings by the OP Corporation who have, however been held to be entitled to recover from the complainant but the consumption charges (only) and that too with effect from 07.04.2016 onwards with due appropriation of the amount Rs.13,385/- deposited by him, on 07.09.2016. We also find that the OP Corpn through its callous acts have indeed bruised/infringed the consumer rights of the present complainant and that rakes it up to an adverse statutory award under the applicable Act.

9. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party corporation to withdraw the impugned portion of the bills i.e. to the tune of Rs.28,205/- (i.e., other than current consumption charges) besides to pay him a sum of Rs.3,000/- as cost and compensation 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 actual payment. The complainant shall be liable to pay the applicable consumption charges only from the date of the paid Bill i.e., 07.04.2016 onwards and the opposite party Service Providers are directed to raise only the appropriate Bills comprising of applicable consumption charges only.

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)

DEC. 07, 2016                                                            Member.

*YP*