Complainant Naresh Kumar through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned bill dated 15.02.2016 amounting to Rs.2,37,370/- and send the same accurately as per the actual consumption. Complainant has further prayed that opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.70,000/- for financial loss, mental as well as physical harassment including Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. He has also prayed that any other relief may kindly be granted if this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit, all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that a meter bearing Account No.3000184648, Serial No.070571 was installed at Atta Chakki, M/s. Khushi Ram, Village Halla Chahia, Gurdaspur which was in the name of Khushi Ram son of Sh.Nikku Ram and complainant is paying the bills to the opposite parties and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. It was pleaded that before September, 2014, complainant was paying the bills which were in between Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month as per the actual consumption. Complainant had paid the bill dated 18.08.2014 amounting to Rs.20,810/- to the opposite parties w.e.f. 30.12.2013 to 01.08.2014 as per the consumption of the said meter. It was pleaded that on 02.12.2014 complainant had moved an application to the opposite party No.3 stating therein that the reading of his meter had reached to 22311 units from previous reading of 3850 units and also made request to check his meter and on the checking the officials of the opposite parties had reported that KVAH reading of the meter was corrected but KWH reading was not corrected and due to that reason there was some fault in the electric meter and the same was to be changed and after it a bill dated 23.12.2014 amounting to Rs.1,52,620/- was received by the complainant which was totally illegal, arbitrary and not as per the actual consumption of the electric meter. It was further pleaded that complainant had not approached to the opposite parties after receiving the bill dated 23.12.2014 as he was assured by the opposite parties on the basis of application dated 02.12.2014 that his electric meter was giving wrong reading and the same would be changed as soon as possible but to the utter surprise the meter was not changed and complainant again received the illegal bill dated 16.07.2015 amounting to Rs.2,38,730/- due to the above said reasons including the previous bill dated 23.12.2014. Upon this an application dated 12.08.2015 moved by the complainant with the opposite parties and requested that his meter be checked from M.E.Lab. of the opposite parties and requested to withdraw the impugned bill dated 23.12.2014 and send the bills as per the actual consumption and on the application of the complainant opposite parties directed him to deposit the checking fee of electric meter and as such an amount of Rs.450/- vide receipt No.351 dated 19.08.2015 deposited by the complainant with the opposite parties but they failed to check the same from the M.E. Lab. despite paying the requisite charges by the complainant. It was also pleaded that complainant again moved an application dated 20.08.2015 to the opposite parties and requested them to withdraw the impugned illegal bills and issue the correct bills as per actual consumption and upon this opposite parties were reported and assured the complainant that after the change of meter he will deposit the current bills. It was next pleaded that on 10.03.2016 opposite parties disconnected the electric meter of the complainant without any rhyme and reason and amount of two impugned bills was Rs.2,38,730/- and as per current electricity bill dated 15.02.2016 total amount of Rs.2,37,370/- were payable by the complainant from which it was clearly shows that all the previous bills had been deposited by the complainant except the impugned bills and this act and conduct of the opposite parties was illegal, arbitrary and unlawful as opposite parties were sending the illegal bills to the complainant without the checking of the meter and not as per the actual consumption. It was pleaded that due to disconnection of the electric connection complainant was facing financial as well as physical loss in his business of Atta Chakki as the electricity is very necessary for running the same and if the meter in question could be checked from the M.E.Lab then such type of situation could have never arisen and this shows the negligence and deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that impugned bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant on imaginative consumption as the complainant had no gadgets to use such an amount of electricity and the same were patently wrong as the same had been sent without checking of the electric meter from the M.E.Lab. It was also pleaded that complainant had approached the opposite parties through oral as well as through applications to withdraw the bills and send the correct bills as the same were illegal and had not been prepared as per the actual consumption of the complainant but they had refused to do so, 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 complaint is not maintainable because the bill in question has been issued for the energy consumed by the complainant and the load of the complainant was 7.900 K.W. and it was small power load. Complainant was running Atta Chakki which was for commercial purposes and the meter was installed on 29.01.2014 and recorded 22,223 units till 04.12.2014 i.e. 309 days which was not abnormal for load of 7.900 K.W. and although the sanctioned load of the complainant was 7.900 K.W. MDI (Maximum demand indicator) was constantly above 10KWH and complainant could not say that his business was below average. Complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as admittedly the connection in question was in the name of one Khushi Ram son of Nikku Ram and if complainant himself alleged to be the grandson of Khushi Ram who has died complainant was required to transfer the connection in his name and then come to the Court and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it was stated that alleged application for checking of the readings of the meter was moved by the complainant on 02.12.2014 and the same was checked by the concerned J.E. at site who record the readings of 22492 on 10.12.2014 and thereafter meter was changed being defective. It was stated that as per the record maintained by the opposite parties an application for challenge of meter was moved by the complainant on 12.08.2015 and meter challenge fee of Rs.450/- was deposited by the complainant on 19.8.2015 i.e. after lapse of more than 9 months due to which meter in question could not be checked and if Hon’ble Forum pleased to order for checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab then opposite parties have no objection to do the same. It was further stated that no such assurance was given by the officials of the opposite parties to the complainant as the bills in question as per the meter reading and the energy consumed by the complainant and if meter of the complainant had been removed prior to the depositing the meter challenge fee the same could not be checked. It was also stated that when the bills were prepared as per consumption of energy record by the meter then there was no question for withdrawing the same. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.H.P.S. Gill, A.E. S.D.O. Ex.OP-1 along with document Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
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 parties while adjudicating the present complaint.
7. From the pleadings and evidence on record we find that the complainant being actual user of the opposite parties bearing account no. 3000184648, Serial No.070571 has challenged the bill dated 15.02.2016 amounting to Rs.2,37,370/- being excessive wrong and may be due to fault in the meter. The complainant has even deposited the meter challenge fees of Rs.450/- vide receipt No.351 dated 19.08.2015.
8. On the other hand opposite parties have also admitted of having received an application for challenge of meter on 12.08.2015 and having received Rs.450/- on account of meter challenge fee on 19.08.2015 from the complainant. The opposite parties have no objection if the meter is directed to be checked in the presence of the complainant.
- In the light of the all above we are of this considered view that this complaint can be best disposed off by giving directions to the opposite parties. Hence, we direct the opposite parties to get the meter tested in the M.E. Lab. after serving notice to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of orders and in meanwhile the recovery of the impugned bill shall remain stayed.
- 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)
AUG. 11, 2016 Member.
*YP*
