Complainant Rajesh Kumar 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 withdraw the illegal demand of impugned bill dated 1.9.2016 for Rs.16,160/- and not to disconnect his electric supply and demand of the opposite party be quashed. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation i.e. mental agony and litigation expenses etc. to him, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is running a small shop at village Talwara Jattan and the said shop is on rent and original owner of the said shop is Sukha Singh son of Sajjan Singh having electric connection in it bearing Account No.G 51 NF 480678N is installed in the name of Sukha and he is paying the electricity bills regularly being tenant and as such he is beneficiary for the same and is the consumer of the opposite parties. He is running his small shop for bread earning of his family and this small shop is the only source of income for livelihood. His average bills were coming 1500 to 2000 and the status of the meter is OK. Earlier he has received bill dated 8.9.2015 for Rs.5567/- which was paid by him and again on 29.10.2015 received bill for Rs.6658/-. After it he moved an application to Asst. Engineer, PSPCL Mirthal on 2.11.2015 for checking of status of meter, because his bill was coming very excess than the actual consumption but no action has been taken. Again he approached the opposite party and moved an application on 6.11.2015, on this the opposite party visited his premises and checked the status and gave a report that wire of another meter bearing A/c No.NF-48/358 is joint with his meter. He again received bill dated 9.5.2016 amounting to Rs.12,601/-. He approached the opposite party and requested them to withdraw the illegal bill  and sent bill as his actual consumption of electricity, but again bill dated 1.9.2016 for Rs.16,160/- was received by him and he again approached the opposite party no.2 and requested them to withdraw the illegal demand but they flatly refused to accept his genuine 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 submitting therein that bills as alleged were sent to complainant and an application was moved by complainant to AAE, PSPCL, Sub Division Mirthal for checking of the meter in question. Record of the all the consumers of PSPCL is kept in computer at Chandigarh. Data of all the electric connections of consumers of State is sent in routine and proper account of every consumer is maintained. Whenever situation like present situation occurs, computer as per its software takes time to correct the consumption data sent in previous months pertaining to particular connection. This is the reason that alleged bills were sent to complainant. Letter bearing memo no.444 dated 26.10.2016 was sent to complainant in this regard amount of Rs.5567/- for the month of 9/15 and amount of Rs.6658/- for the month of 11/15, from the Account No.NF48/678 were transferred and charged from Account No.NF 48/358 vide SOP No.58/62/2 and in this way bills pertaining to meter of complainant were rectified. It was further submitted that when on receipt of bills in question complainant approached opposite parties, complainant was informed that his electric account will be corrected in near future and excessive amount reflected in his bills which pertains to holder of Account No.NF 48/358 will be charged from him but complainant wanted immediate action and which was not possible. No threat to disconnect connection of complainant was ever given to him. No action of the opposite parties is illegal, null and void. There is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It was lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Er. Kewal Krishan S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit OP1, alongwith other document Ex.OP2 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 beneficiary holder of consumer A/c # G51NF480678N and the present dispute prompted upon his being in receipt of the repeatedly inflated consumption Bill dated 09.05.2016 for  Rs.12,601/- (Ex.C6) followed by the impugned Bill dated 01.09.2016 for Rs.16,160/- (Ex.C7) with further threats of disconnection of his electricity connection. The complainant has further stated that the present impugned demand was issued in spite of ‘admission’ by the OP service providers that the complainant’s Electric Meter was somehow inadvertently connected to wires pertaining to another A/c No. NF-48/358 and still 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 admittedly deposed that the impugned Bill comprising of Rs.16,160/- has been the result of ‘wrong’ wire connections pertaining to the one other Meter and the ensuing ‘anomaly’ being computerized shall be auto-corrected by the OP Computer Billing System in succeeding Bills. The OP Corporation has also submitted its hand written letter (post-complaint) addressed to the complainant (Ex.OP2) to contain its above contention and also to accord justifiability and fairness to its arbitrary act. We are certainly not convinced with the clarification as put forth by the OP Corporation to justify its act of wrong connections resulting into the impugned Bill since it is in direct contravention of its own rules and regulations, as applicable on date; and that establishes ‘unfair trade practice’ coupled with ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the OP service providers and that rakes them up for an ‘adverse’ statutory award under the applicable statute. Moreover, the impugned demand as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the arbitrary amount by the opposite party corporation has been admittedly not a matter of routine and the same has not even been proved to be in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per its Sales/Distribution Policy and the Rules & Regulations etc as framed, there under. 

8.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party corporation to withdraw the impugned Bill (Ex.C7) and instead raise the applicable consumption charges on the basis of complainant’s past consumption (history) record by duly appropriating the amount deposited by the complainant (if any) besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation and another Rs.2,000/- as cost of present litigation 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 orders till actual realization.

9.        Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

           (Naveen Puri)

                                                                               President   

Announced:                                                     (Jagdeep Kaur)

January, 24 2017                                                    Member

*MK*