Complainant Vikramjit Singh 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 impugned demand raised vide impugned notice dated 2.12.2015 and to set aside/quash the notice in question. Opposite parties be further directed to transfer the electric connection in his name and to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for physical harassment and mental agony alongwith litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that his father has got installed an electric connection bearing Account No.3002888134 in the workshop and he was using the electricity supply and has been paying the consumption bills regularly to the opposite parties without any default.  Thus he is beneficiary and consumer of the opposite parties.  The said electric connection is of 3 Phase. His father has got installed the said electric connection in the workshop from which he has been earning exclusively livelihood for himself as well as for his family members by way of self employment. Now his work has shut down and there is no machinery in the workshop. The workshop is lying vacant for the last more than 2 years. There is only equipments i.e. 2 Fans and 2 Bulbs in the Workshop which are presently running at the electricity from the said electric connection. He has further pleaded that his meter was faulty as it was showing excess consuming reading than the actual consumption. There was no heavy equipment in the workshop which has been plied over the electric connection, so the question of consuming such excessive energy by him does not arise at all. Ultimately he has moved application before the opposite party no.3 to check the meter and to change the meter with new one and adjust the reading which was excessively shown on the Meter reading. The opposite parties have demanded Rs.450/- from him as challenge fee which he has deposited with the opposite parties and accordingly his meter was changed and installed new electric meter in the demised premises. He has next contended that he has also deposited three bills of the said new electric meter with the opposite parties but later on strange enough the opposite parties have issued a legal notice bearing memo no.1177 dated 2.12.2015 amounting to Rs.28,698/- to him which is totally illegal, null and void and is not binding upon him as there is nothing outstanding against him towards the electricity charges. 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 complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hand; the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. On merits, it is submitted that the Account no.3002888134 is sanctioned in the name of Kulwant Singh. The complainant had moved an application regarding the defective meter to the opposite parties and on the request of the complainant; the opposite parties changed the electric meter of the complainant vide MCO No.100001184845 on 26.8.2015. After that the electric meter of the complainant was sent to the M.E.Lab vide Challan No.8. The meter of the complainant was checked in the M.E.Lab, after that the M.E.Lab directed to the opposite party no.4 to charge the amount of Rs.28,698/- from the complainant as difference of units i.e. 3961 units, and on the direction of M.E.Lab, the opposite party no.3 has sent the Memo No.1177 dated 2.12.2015 for the recovery of Rs.28,698/-. So the amount demanded by the opposite parties is the unpaid energy charges of the complainant. 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. The sanctioned load of the complainant is 2.51 kilowatt. So as per the load of the complainant, the consumption of the complainant should not be less than 300 units per bill but from the month of August, 2014 up till July, 2015, the every bill of the complainant shows O consumption, which itself shows the defect of the meter. 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, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C14 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Manjit Singh S.D.O. P S P C Ltd. Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.

6.        We have thoroughly examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some 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 present contestants. We find that the present dispute has arisen on account of the OP Corporation Memo dated 02.12.2015 for Rs.28,698/- (Ex.C4) drawn upon the complainant as consumption charges (during the period) on account of the faulty Meter that was however changed on 26.08.2015 at the request of the complainant. The OP service providers have further stated that the ‘defective’ Meter was sent to the OP’s ME Lab for testing etc and it was at the ME Lab’s directive/report that the impugned memo (raising a Bill of Rs.28,698/-) was issued (for deposit) to the complainant. Somehow, the OP Corporation has not even attempted to legally justify the ME Lab directed Bill (the impugned memo) by producing on record some acceptable cogent evidence say governing Sales Rules etc. The ME Lab’s related reports along with the requisite ‘affidavit’ of the dealing hands/Lab Inspector(s) have also not been produced on records. Even, the ‘working’ status of the Electric Meter has not  been produced on records. We find this ‘lapse’ as amounting to ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the OP service providers and that lines them up for an adverse statutory award under the applicable law.     

7.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Corporation to withdraw (in writing) the impugned (bill) Memo of 02.12.2015 for Rs.28,698/- besides to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant (as cost and compensation) within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders and also to draw all future Bills as per the actual ‘consumption’ determined strictly in accordance with the applicable Sales Rules/Schedules etc.

8.      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)

May,13 2016                                                                    Member

*MK*