Complainant Surjit Kaur 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 set aside illegal demand raised in bill No.7556 dated 27.09.2011 for Rs.8250/-, bill dated  22.01.2016 for Rs.31,920/- and bill dated 21.07.2016 for Rs.32,080/- and also to pay Rs.15,000/- as unnecessary physical and mental harassment caused by the opposite party to her alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that she has a residential house of double storied and there were two electricity meters installed in the same house for each portion. The ground floor portion of the house was rented by her. In which electricity connection bearing Account No.3000158564 (NRS) Consumer No.G43MF481728A (disputed connection) was got installed in her name and she was paying electricity bills regularly to the opposite parties. She had got the abovesaid portion vacated on or  before dated 3.7.2011 and before issuing the disputed bill, the opposite party issued an electricity bill for Rs.4534/- for the period of 03.05.2011 to 03.07.2011 in respect of abovesaid account and similarly she paid the same vide receipt No.45 dated 5.9.2011 to the opposite party. After the vacate of abovesaid portion, she consumed only 6 units of electricity as per electricity bill No.7556 dated 27.09.2011 as shown in the column of meter reading as “new-3544 and old-3538. The meter reader of the opposite party visited her premises to take meter reading and noted 6 units and he had under doubt that abovesaid meter may be stopped to work due to some technical fault and he noted meter status in “D” code and removed the same from her premises and disconnected the electricity supply. She has further pleaded that after it the opposite party issued a bill dated 27.09.2011 amounting to Rs.8250/- by showing the consumption of 573 units on average basis which is illegal, null and void and against the rules and regulations of the PSPCL and she is not bound to pay the same.  She reached to the office of the opposite party no.2 alongwith written application dated 7.10.2011 and requested them to modify the disputed bill and also requested to issue a fresh bill of the consumption only of 6 units, then the concerned authority of opposite party told her to pay Rs.1139/- instead of paying Rs.8250/- so she paid Rs.1139/- vide receipt no.27 dated 5.11.2011 in respect of abovesaid account. Now, there are no pending dues or previous arrears in respect of abovesaid bill. The opposite party again issued a bill dated 22.1.2016 for Rs.31,920/- and bill dated 21.7.2016 for Rs.32,080/- of disconnected connection which is also illegal, null and void and also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 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 taking the preliminary objections that the electric connection mentioned in the complaint is commercial in nature, hence this Fourm has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint is time barred. On merits, it was submitted that the meter was declared ‘D’ code due to the fault of complainant after that meter was changed by PSPCL. Actually, complainant has paid average bill of Rs.1139/- as the meter was declared ’D’ Code. The bill issued to the complainant is also included Rs.4534/- as arrears. It was next submitted that the bill is unpaid consumption bill from 12.12.2011 to 19.09.2016 as the meter was declared ‘D’Code. The average bill for commercial purpose of 2 K M load is Rs.172/- per KW per month. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.     Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 and of Reeta widow of late Sh.Sanjeevan Kumar Ex.C9, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Amardeep Singh Nagra, S.D.O./A.E.E. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.

6.      We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the applicable Consumer Protection Act, 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant had held one NRS electricity connection # 3000158564 at the Ground Floor of her Residential House allegedly vacated on 03.07.2011 and the related Bill of even date for Rs. 4534/- was duly paid vide Receipt # 45 of 05.09.2011 and further no electricity was ever consumed, thereafter. However, Bill dated 27.09.2011 for Rs.8,250/- was drawn/issued by the OP Corporation and upon representation an amount of Rs.1139/- on average basis was duly paid and accepted vide Receipt # 27 of 05.11.2011. Again, the OP Corporation issued the impugned Bill dated 22.01.2016 for Rs.31,920/- and upon its non-payment another revised Bill for Rs.32,080/- was issued on 21.07.2016 for Rs.32,080/- and thus prompted the present complaint with its contents duly deposed by the affidavits Ex.C1 & Ex.C9 with the documentary support of Ex.C2 to Ex.C8.

7.       However, the opposite party corporation (service providers) has duly explained in their reply duly supported by sufficient ‘cogent’ evidence including its affidavit Ex.OP1 and other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 explaining therein that the 2KW Load - NRS connection attracts a sum of Rs. 172/- per month and the complainant had not paid any amount with effect from Septemebr’2011 onwards whereas he has been legally liable to pay the validly demanded amount vide the impugned Bills.

8.       Somehow, we find the duly evidenced explanation as made out in support of the demand vides the impugned Bill to be satisfactory and legally valid as put forth by the opposite party service providers. The demand as put forth upon the complainant by the opposite party corporation has been a matter of routine and they have been within their legal rights to have followed the legally determined guidelines in accordance with the Sales and Distribution of Electricity Rules & Regulations etc. 

9.       In the light of the all above, we do not find any statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs. 

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

                                                              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                        President

ANNOUNCED:                                              (Jagdeep Kaur)

January, 04 2017.                                                 Member.

*MK*