Complainant Raj Masih 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 not to recover Rs.20,940/- shown in bill dated 4.10.2016 and not to disconnect his electric supply. Opposite parties be further directed to quash the illegal demand and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation  for mental agony and litigation expenses etc. in the interest of justice.

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.G35NF340888L. He has been paying the consumption bills regularly to the opposite parties.  He is a labourer and he was stunned to receive bill dated 5.8.2016 amounting to Rs.6940/- and he is unable to deposit such a huge amount. After it, he approached the opposite party no.3 and enquired the matter but they did not give any satisfactory reply to him. The status of the meter was OK at the time of issuing the above said bill and previously he was receiving the electricity bills in between Rs.400/- to Rs.600/- as per consumption of electricity. He has further pleaded that the opposite party issued another bill dated 4.10.2016 for Rs.6940/- in which opposite party demanded Rs.20,940/- including the amount of previous bill dated 5.8.2016 and in this way the opposite parties charged huge amount than his actual consumption. After receiving the bill in dispute he visited the office of the opposite party no.3 and requested them to withdraw the illegal amount but they refused to do so rather they threatened him to disconnect his electricity supply which is clear cut 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 as the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party has sent the bill on average basis for December, 2015 and February, 2016 due to F and C Code for 64 units and 63 units, whereas the actual consumption of the complainant in the month of December, 2015 was 770 units and in the month of February, 2016 it was 251 units. So, the Audit Party directed the opposite party to charge the actual bill from the complainant for December, 2015 and February 2016 instead of the bill of the average basis, hence the opposite parties added the amount of Rs.6059/- in the bill of October, 2016 of the complainant as sundry charges. The complainant has not paid the bill of August, 2016. So, the amount demanded by the opposite parties is legal and genuine. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Lalit Kumar S.D.O. PSPCL Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally acceptable statutory merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant had been the General Category holder of Electricity Connection with consumer A/c # G35NF340888L and the present dispute prompted upon his being in receipt of the repeatedly inflated consumption Bill dated 05.08.2016 for Rs.6,940/- (Ex.C3) followed by the impugned Bill dated 04.10.2016 for Rs.20,940/- (Ex.C2) with further threats of disconnection of his electricity connection. The complainant has further stated that the present impugned demand was issued sans any pre-notice etc and in spite of his having paid all his Bills regularly and well in time but the OP Corporation had been adamant not to rectify the impugned Bill and hence the present complaint.    

7.       We further find that the OP Corporation in its written reply and in its Affidavit Ex.OP1 has deposed that the complainant had got the electricity connection under the general category of consumers and thus he was issued the impugned Bill comprised of the amount of Rs.20,940/- and that too at the instance of the accounts audit conducted on the complainant’s account when these arrears were duly detected and demanded as per the corporation rules. We find that the OP Corporation has not put forth any good logic/reason for having issued the demand on the basis of as and when received from the audit party without having served any pre-notice and having provided any opportunity to the complainant to represent his case. We find that counsel for the OP has failed to show if any notice was issued to the consumer before overhauling his account and demanding the impugned amount from him at the time of audit. It is regular feature in the Power Corporation that Audit Parties audit the consumer's account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party. It is understood that whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party, the SDO concerned is required to check the report but in practice the penalty is imposed without any cross checking by the SDO concerned. Before imposing penalty etc., notice is required to be given to consumer to explain his position. The requirement of law is that proper prescribed procedure is to be followed and before imposing penalty on the consumer notice is required to be issued to the consumer. It should be ensured that seven days is given to the consumer before imposing penalty in such cases. In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajji Bai 2009(1)CLT 526 it has been held by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Para 5 of the order which states that:

“Admittedly, in this case demand has been made by the opposite parties on the basis of objection raised by the Audit party. The opposite parties have placed on record the documents containing estimate of the additional demand made Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6. It is clear from the material placed on record that the opposite parties have not cared to follow the relevant instructions contained in Para Nos.2 and 3 of the Sales Circular No.27/96 which read as under:“It is regular feature in the Electricity Board that Audit Parties audit the consumer's account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party. It is understood that whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party, the SDO concerned is required to check the report but in practice the penalty is imposed without any cross checking by the SDO concerned. Before imposing penalty etc., notice is required to be given to consumer to explain his position. “The requirement of law is that proper prescribed procedure is to be followed and before imposing penalty on the consumer notice is required to be issued to the consumer. It should be ensured that seven days is given to the consumer before imposing penalty in such cases”. The above instructions leave no manner of doubt that the opposite parties were duty bound to supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the above stated requirement which the opposite parties have not complied with in this case”.

8.       We further draw support from a judgment passed by Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh, in a case reported in 2004(1) CPC 567 (PSEB Vs. Kuldip Singh) para 4 of the order of which is as follows.

“No notice was given to the complainant by the audit party before giving the report and the report is one sided. We all, thus of the opinion that OP has no lawful right to recover the amount of Rs.16,140/- and Rs.1640/- from the complainant. The complainant paid the amount only under threat of disconnection. Hence, he is entitled to refund the amount. The point is decided accordingly”.

9.       So from the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down in the above cited authorities, it is clear that before over-hauling the account or demanding any amount on account of audit objection, notice is required to be given to the consumer. In the present case no such notice is proved to have been given to the complainant before overhauling his account and raising impugned demand on the basis of objections of the audit party. Consequently, the impugned demand cannot be held to be legal and valid.

10.     In view of the above discussion, complaint is partly accepted and the impugned demand of Rs.20,940/- vide Bill dated 04 .10.2016 is set-aside. Amount if deposited by the complainant be refunded forthwith besides payment of Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The compliance be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aggregate amount from the date of order till realization and proceedings u/s 27 CPA shall be initiated against the OP. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.

11.         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)

FEB. 08 2017                                                          Member

*YP*