Order by:

Sh.Mohinder Singh Brar, Member

1.           The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that the complainant is having electric connection A/c No.F13SD740427L in his name. Complainant was astonished when he received the memo dated 16.08.2022 issued by the Opposite Parties whereby the Opposite Parties had demanded a sum of Rs.40,967/-. The complainant visited the Opposite Parties for a number of times for the detail of the said amount, but the Opposite Parties lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. The said meter was checked in the absence of the complainant or his representative. The said meter was never changed, sealed and packed in the presence of the complainant. It is a clear cut violation of law and rules and regulations of PSPCL. The alleged demand is altogether, illegal, unjust void at law and liable to be set aside, as no proper notice of any kind has been issued before imposing the said amount; the complainant has been condemned un-heard; no opportunity has been granted to the complainant; mandatory provision of PSPCL has been violated; the demand of the said arrear is mere a dictatorship, exparte without any rhyme or reason. Further alleged that Opposite Parties are bent upon and threatening to recover the amount of Rs.40,967/- forcibly, illegally, unjustly and by taking law into their own hands. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to quash the illegal demand of Rs.40,967/- raised by it vide memo no.1660 dated 16.08.2022.

b)      To pay an amount of R.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment.

c)       And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant is estopped to file the present complaint by his own act and conduct. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant was not paying the actual consumption charges. Whatsoever amount has been paid by him has been duly adjusted into his account and the disputed amount is due and recoverable from him. The Opposite Parties have sent legal notice for the recovery of Rs.40,967/- as per checking of meter in ME Lab. The complainant after receiving the notice, visited the office of Opposite Party No.3 where he was fully convinced and record was shown to him and he was fully satisfied and promised to pay the amount in question within short period but after that due to ill advise he has filed the present complaint by concealing the true facts. Further alleged that the old meter was changed with new one and at the time of removal of the old meter there was reading on the same as 8739 but as per office report the billing was done for the reading to the extent 73 but as per consumption data billing was done upto reading of 2021. Further alleged that the old removed meter was brought by Sh.Gurmeet Singh (JE) alongwith other meters and the same was checked in ME Lab Moga on 05.08.2022 and during its internal checking the above said facts were found regarding difference of reading and in the said ME Lab competent officials of PSPCL checked the said meter and prepared a detail report duly signed by them and on the basis of said checking, the said notice was issued to the complainant. In this case, the meter reader Jaswinder Singh has also submitted his detail explanation/report regarding the status of the meter and reading on the same. Further alleged that it was a single phase meter and not 3 phase meter for which the checking is necessary. All other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       In order to prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 & Ex.C3.

4.       To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Gurlal Singh, SDO, PSPCL Ex.OPs1 along with copies of documents Ex.OPs2 to Ex.OPs7.

5.       Vide separate statement, ld. counsel for the complainant stated that complaint filed on behalf of the complainant may kindly be treated as final arguments. We have heard the counsel for the Opposite Parties and gone through the documents placed on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply respectively. The main contention of the complainant is that he received the memo dated 16.08.2022 issued by the Opposite Parties whereby the Opposite Parties had demanded a sum of Rs.40,967/-, which is arbitrary and illegal. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has repelled the aforesaid contentions of ld. counsel for the complainant on the ground the old meter of the complainant was changed with new one and at the time of removal of the old meter there was reading on the same as 8739, but as per consumption data billing was done upto reading of 2021. Further alleged that the old removed meter of the complainant was checked in ME Lab Moga on 05.08.2022 and during its internal checking fact of difference of reading was found and in the said ME Lab competent officials of PSPCL prepared a detailed report duly signed by them and on the basis of said checking, the said notice was issued to the complainant.

7.       We have perused the rival contentions of ld counsel for both the parties. After considering all the documents placed on record, we are of the view that in the month of 07/2021 the consumer was billed upto the reading of 2021. After this, the display of the meter in dispute got defective and it was not displaying the reading. Hence in the month of 09/2021, 11/2021, 01/2022, 03/2022 and 5/2022, the bills were issued on average basis for 263, 109, 194, 956, 335 units respectively. Hence, total (263, 109, 194, 956, 335) 1857 units were charged for 09/21 to 05/22 on average basis. Then, the meter was removed and checked in Metering Equipped Lab on 05.08.2022 with the help of laboratory equipments and it was found that the final reading of the meter was 8739, but the complainant was already billed for reading 2021 (upto 07/2021) and for 1857 units on average basis for 09/2021 to 05/2022. Hence, the complainant consumed 8730 units, but he was charged for 2021 and 1857 units total 3878 units, so there is a difference of 4861 units and these are the units the consumer consumed in excess of his average billing units and the same is chargeable and recoverable from the complainant.

8.       In view of the above discussion, the instant complaint is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced on Open Commission