Complainant Lakha Masih Principal 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 quash and set aside the bill dated 14.8.2015 amounting to Rs.1,81,490/- and demand notice dated 2.07.2015. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses and for causing harassment and further may also be granted any other relief which he may be found entitled to.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that the Government Senior Secondary School, Jagowal Bet is the consumer of the opposite parties as opposite parties are rendering their services of Electricity vide Account No.SF24/1159. Four months back on 27.06.2015, the electricity meter installed in the premises of the School burnt due to unknown reasons. Thus he informed the officials of the opposite parties and on same day the officials of opposite parties removed the burnt electricity meter with new electricity meter. After some days, he received the demand notice from the opposite parties dated 02.07.2015 in which the opposite parties demanded the amount of Rs.1,81,490/- from him in lieu of the consumption i.e. difference of meter reading of the electric meter and that came to 27,000 units which is reported by M.E.Lab and opposite parties. The opposite parties issued electricity bill to him on 27.06.2015, the day on which the electricity meter was burnt and the amount was Rs.14,840/- for the period from 18.05.2015 to 22.06.2015. The report of M.E.Lab is of 30.06.2015 and it is not possible that the consumption of 27,740 units made in three days and that also when the school was closed due to summer vacations. As per the principles of law for testing the meter in M.E. Lab before opening the meter, the consumer is to be called at M.E.Lab for his satisfaction but instead of this the officials of the opposite parties did not call him before testing the electricity meter and just serve demand notice to him of their illegal demand after alleged checking by M.E.Lab. The opposite parties had been acting arbitrarily and has sent the impugned bill amounting to Rs.1,81,490/- as imaginative consumption as he has no gadget to use such limit amount of electricity. He has asked the opposite party to withdraw the bill dated 24.08.2015 amounting to Rs.1,81,490/- as the same is illegal and has not been prepared as per his actual consumption but they have refused to do so, 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 present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case because an intrinsic and typically legal matter is involved in the present case because it is case of deep inquiry and lengthy evidence. On merits, it was submitted that meter reader at the instance of complainant used to take less reading since long time and on the arrival of present S D O who instructed the meter reader to take correct reading of all consumers and if any case of wrong reading is found on checking then services of meter reader would be terminated. And when the complainant came to know about the said verbal instructions of SDO he managed to burn the meter in question. And on burning the meter an application was made by the complainant to change the meter burnt meter. Then meter was checked by the  J.E. of area vide Account No.SF 24/1159 on 2.5.2015 and according to his report the meter was found burnt and particulars of meter were not readable and change of meter was suggested and it was also suggested to get the meter checked from M.E.Lab. Hence according MCO vide Book No.60317 Sr. No.064 dated 4.5.2015 was issued regarding said burnt meter to Sh.Malkit Singh J.E. by the SDO of Sub Division Purana Shala which was effected on 18.05.2015. And said removed meter was packed in the presence of complainant who gave his written consent to check the meter in his absence in the M.E.Lab. And said Meter was checked in the M.E.Lab alongwith other Meters on 30.05.2015 and according to the report of M.E.Lab “the seals of meter were O.K. and on checking reading of Meter was found 54740 units and according to previous data of consumer the last reading the bill has been charged upto 27000 units and consumer has been ordered to be charged for difference of 27740 units i.e. amount of Rs.1,81,490/-. Actually consumer has been charged the said amount of consumption of 27740 units as per report of M.E.Lab. 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.C6 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Jit Singh S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-9 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have thoroughly examined the available documents/evidence as produced on the records (of the present proceedings) so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference (if any) on account of some of the documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels of the litigating contestants. We find that the present complaint has transpired as a result of ‘issuance’ of the impugned demand memo # 538 dated 02.07.2015 for Rs.1,81,490/- billed in lieu of the difference of 27740 units of ‘consumption’ as recorded ‘less’ but detected during the inspection/ testing of the ‘defective’ Meter, duly reported as ‘burnt’ by the complainant. The above demand memo was duly followed by ‘consumption’ Bill (Ex.C4) of 24.08.2015 for Rs.1,81,880/-.

7.       Moreover, the complainant has vividly alleged in his complaint (duly supported by his affidavit Ex.C1) that the installed Electricity Meter (at the School) got accidently burnt in May’ 2015 (for non-explicit reasons) and that was duly reported to the OP3 service providers who replaced the same with a ‘fresh’ new Meter to be followed the impugned memo/bill prompting the present complaint. The OP Corporation, in rebuttal, has somehow allegedly stated (as also ‘partially’ deposed in ‘affidavit’ Ex.OP1) that the Electricity Meter in question was ‘knowingly’ burnt by the complainant in order to ‘destroy’ all evidence of his ‘actual’ high (excessive) consumption that he has somehow (till that time) managed to ‘hide’ (from higher authorities) in connivance with the OP’s Meter Reader. There has also been an exchange of other inter-se allegations involving many complex questions of facts (and also of law) inseparably bonded to the present dispute/complaint (both primarily and collaterally) desiring a simultaneous resolve requisitioning a complete comprehensive trial that may comprise of exhaustive examination of ‘witnesses’ etc and that shall not be statutorily feasible under the ‘summary’ procedure as prescribed to the applicable ‘statute’, here.

8.       In the light of the all above, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. However the present complainant is at liberty to seek an appropriate ‘judicial resolve’ to his dispute before the ‘civil-court’ of competent jurisdiction. No orders as to the present costs

9.        Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges and file be duly consigned to records.

                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                               President   

Announced:                                                       (Jagdeep Kaur)

June,06 2016                                                              Member

*MK*