Complainant Kewal Krishan 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 to refund the excess bill dated 5.3.2015 amounting to Rs.41,030/- illegally charged from him. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month as costs of litigation and Rs.50,000/- on account of mental torture and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice and fair play.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has installed an electric connection in his house for domestic purpose bearing Account No.G22PR650163M and is residing alone in the said house and using the electric connection and paying the consumption bills regularly to the opposite parties.  Thus he is consumer of the opposite parties.  His only son alongwith his family is residing at Chandigarh permanently and he often used to visit Chandigarh to meet his son and there usually remain less consumption of the electricity. He paid the bills pertains to the period 31.12.2014 to 4.3.2015 with the meter reading started from 2777 units to 2935 units and his electricity consumption comes to 158 units and the bill of Rs.870/- was charged by the opposite parties. After paying the bill he went to meet his son at Chandigarh and the opposite parties sent the next bill for the period of 5.3.2015 to 12.6.2015 showing the meter reading as 6750 to 7708 and his electricity consumption was 958 units and suddenly bill amounting to Rs.41,030/- has been demanded by the opposite parties, whereas the bill pertaining to the period of 31.12.2014 to 04.03.2015 showing the meter reading of 2935 to his utter surprise, the opposite parties have charged the bill from the reading of 6750 units for the next period i.e. 5.3.2015 to 12.6.2015, hence the demand made by the opposite parties is altogether illegal and without any basis. After returning from Chandigarh, it has come to his notice that his meter has been changed and installed another meter with reading of 6750 units without any intimation/permission, which is illegal, null and void. He under threat/protest deposited amount of Rs.6600/- in cash and Rs.35,620/- through cheque no.584170 dated 21.12.2015 of Punjab National Bank, Batala in the account of the opposite parties. He moved a written letter dated 21.12.2015 to the opposite party no.1 and requested to rectify the bill, but the officials of the opposite parties did not pay heed towards his written request and flatly refused to refund the excess amount illegally charges from him under wrong pretext and thereafter he visited the office of the opposite party no.1 time and again and make requested to them to refund the excess bill amount illegal charges from him, but they turned deaf ears towards his 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 who appeared through their counsel and filed their 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 approached this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts  and  the complaint is not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it was submitted that the electric connection of the complainant was checked by the opposite parties vide LCR No.13181 dated 16.4.2015 and during the checking the body of the meter and seals were found suspected. Hence, the meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO no.37/508 dated 16.4.2015. The old meter bearing no.1385627 was removed at the reading of 3617 units, whereas the complainant has paid bill upto 2935 units. Hence the difference of 3617-2935 = 682 units, which is recoverable from the complainant. The new meter bearing no.2635873 was installed at the reading of 6750 units and upto 12.6.2015 the complainant has consumed the electricity upto 7708 units, so the opposite parties could charge the bill of 958 units from the complainant. The opposite parties will rectify the rest bill of the complainant except 682 + 958 units in upcoming bill. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Lalit Kumar SDO, PSPCL Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.

6.        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.C2 dated 04.12.2015 for Rs.35,620/- alleged as un-authorized excessive by the complainant measured against his past ‘consumption’ and present ‘usage’ etc. The OP service providers sans any ‘request’ or even ‘consent’ of the complainant changed his Electric Meter in his absence and drew the impugned/disputed Bills. Somehow, the OP service providers have admittedly stated in their written reply and also in the affidavit Ex.OP1 that the impugned Bill shall be duly ‘rectified’ to the correct ‘actual’ consumption and that amounts to the due ‘admittance’ of their guilt and that lines them up for an adverse statutory ‘award’ under the applicable Consumer Protection Act’ 1986.

7.       It is not understood as to how and on what supply rules basis, the OP Corporation has stated that they shall charge only for the 682+ 958 = 1640 units as of ‘actual’ electricity consumed by the complainant since the available recorded ‘consumption’ history defies the same. Moreover, the Electricity Meter has been removed in his absence without the complainant’s consent and signatures etc and no affidavit/records of Meter Lab Testing etc have been produced during the present proceedings. We do not find the ‘OP Statement’ to be legally acceptable as forwarded/put forth by them in the written reply and the accompanying affidavit in the matter of settlement of accounts upon detection of such a large consumption of units in one single transaction. 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 OP service provider’s 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.C16 fully corroborates the revealed deficiency in service on the part of the OP service providers. Lastly, we hold the OP service providers ‘guilty’ of deficiency in service and thus liable to an adverse ‘award’ under the Act.

8.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the titled opposite parties to withdraw the impugned Bills and to suitably moderate the entire consumption Bills as per the complainant’s entitlement right from the period of the first impugned Bill dated 04.12.2015 to till the date of the present orders besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation for having caused him un-necessary harassment 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.

9.           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)

June, 13 2016                                                                   Member

*MK*