Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under  section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that an NRS electric connection bearing account no.F11MR250856K with sanctioned load of 3.00 KW is  installed  in the shop of the complainant since 03.08.2016 and the complainant is using the said electric connection for earning his livelihood and hence, the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant further alleges that he is regularly paying the electricity consumption bills against the receipts as and when received and nothing is due against him except the alleged balance of disputed bill dated 01.04.2017. Further alleges that perusal of the bills for the period of last two years i.e. w.e.f. October 2016 to August 2018 shows that the electricity consumption of the complainant never exceeded 399 units bi-monthly except the disputed bill dated 01.04.2017 which was ever exorbitant i.e. for 2565 units copies of the bills are placed on file as Ex.C2 to Ex.C13. On receipt of the exorbitant bill dated 01.04.2017 (Ex.C5) the complainant approached the office of the Opposite Parties on so many occasions for clarification and rectification of the impugned bill to the extent of actual consumption, but all the times, the officials of the Opposite Parties lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and all the times, the Opposite Parties sent the next bills by adding the exorbitant and illegal arrears of the bill dated 01.04.2017. Not only this, the Opposite Parties also added all the times the surcharge amount in the next bills without any fault of the complainant. When the complainant did not receive any response to his oral/ verbal request to the Opposite Parties, the complainant also wrote registered letter dated 09.03.2018 but none of the Opposite Parties paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant, but however the officials of the Opposite Parties made threat to the complainant that if the said bill is not paid, then the connection of the complainant would be disconnected, so under the compelling circumstances, and to avoid disconnection the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.30,000/- on 12.09.2018.                        Repeated requests have been made by the complainant to the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal demand and not to indulge the complainant into any litigation, but opposite parties refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. Due to the aforesaid act and conduct and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and financial loss. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

1. To set aside and quash the illegal demand of opposite parties of Rs.23,340/- raised vide bill dated 01.04.2017 on the basis of unexplained consumption.  
2. Further opposite parties may also be directed to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant on account of  compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as costs of complaint.  
3. Further the Opposite Parties may be directed not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant due to non payment of the impugned amount till the final adjudication of the present dispute.
4. To correct the next consumption bills as per actual consumption bills or on average of last year’s consumption.
5. And any other relief may kindly be granted as this Commission  may deem fit and proper. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Actual facts are that the bill in dispute relating to the consumption charges which was consumed by the complainant and he is liable to pay the same both in law and equity. On merits, it is averred that the demand of the Opposite Parties is legal one and in accordance with the rules and regulations of the corporation as the amount of the bills relate to the consumption charges only.  All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with special costs has been made.

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, the Opposite Parties have tendered into evidence  the affidavit of Sh.Rakesh Kumar SDO Ex.OPs1, copies of documents Ex.OPs2 to Ex.OPs8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

5.       We have heard the  ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that an NRS electric connection bearing account no.F11MR250856K with sanctioned load of 3.00 KW is installed in the shop of the complainant since 03.08.2016 and the complainant is using the said electric connection for earning his livelihood and the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Further contended that the complainant is  regularly paying the electricity consumption bills against the receipts as and when received and nothing is due against him except the alleged balance of disputed bill dated 01.04.2017. Further contended that  perusal of the bills for the period of last two years i.e. w.e.f. October 2016 to August 2018 shows that the electricity consumption of the complainant never exceeded 399 units bi-monthly except the disputed bill dated 01.04.2017 which was ever exorbitant i.e. for 2565 units copies of the bills are placed on file as Ex.C2 to Ex.C13. It is the case of the complainant that on receipt of the exorbitant bill dated 01.04.2017 (Ex.C5) the complainant approached the office of the Opposite Parties on so many occasions for clarification and rectification of the impugned bill to the extent of actual consumption, but all the times, the officials of the Opposite Parties lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and all the times, the Opposite Parties sent the next bills by adding the exorbitant and illegal arrears of the bill dated 01.04.2017. Not only this, the Opposite Parties also added all the times the surcharge amount in the next bills without any fault of the complainant. When the complainant did not receive any response to his oral/ verbal request to the Opposite Parties, the complainant also wrote registered letter dated 09.03.2018 but none of the Opposite Parties paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant, but however the officials of the Opposite Parties made threat to the complainant that if the said bill is not paid, then the connection of the complainant would be disconnected, so under the compelling circumstances, and to avoid disconnection the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.30,000/- on 12.09.2018 and thereafter, the repeated requests have been made by the complainant to the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal demand and not to indulge the complainant into any litigation, but opposite parties refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the Complainant on the ground that  admittedly the complainant is a ‘consumer’ of electric connection and  the Opposite Parties issued bill under reference to the complainant in which  the impugned demand has been raised from the complainant on the basis of consumption on the meter. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties further contended that  the bill in dispute is relating to the consumption charges which was consumed by the complainant and hence the complainant  is liable to pay the same both in law and equity and  the demand of the Opposite Parties is legal one and in accordance with the rules and regulations of the corporation as the amount of the bills relate to the consumption charges only and the complainant has filed the present complaint which is totally false and frivolous. But however, we are not convinced with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties. The consumption data of the complainant for the period w.e.f. 02.10.2016 till 04.08.2018 is reproduced as under:-

          Perusal of the aforesaid data of the consumption of the complainant of the last two years shows that the consumption of the complainant never exceeded 399 units except the disputed  one.  Moreover, the Opposite Parties have also failed to prove  and produce any iota of evidence on record to the effect that during those days, there was any such function or any special occasion in the house of the complainant and due to that reason, the complainant has consumed the electricity  to such extent.    In this way, the amount raised by the Opposite Parties vide impugned bill appears to be based on the  exorbitant consumption/ excessive billing than the normal consumption of the Complainant.

8.       Moreover, the Consumer Fora (now Commission) has fullest jurisdiction to settle disputes relating to excessive billing in case the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice, as per law laid down in case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and another vs. M.D. Imtiyaz-IV (2014) CPJ- 25 (Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission). So, certainly this Commission has jurisdiction to decide the matter in question, particularly when the demand put forth in violation of rules and regulations as well as principles of natural justice as discussed hereinafter.

9.       Regulation 21.5.1 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007 (as notified by Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission vide notification No.PSERC/Secy./Reg.97 dated November 5, 2014 and published in Govt. of Punjab Gazette(Extra) dated November 5, 2014) provides that account of the consumer, whose meter on testing found to be beyond the limits of prescribed accuracy, shall be overhauled and the electricity charges for all categories of consumers shall be computed in accordance with the said test results for a period not exceeding six months immediately preceding the date of test, in case meter has been tested at site to the satisfaction of the consumer or replacement of inaccurate meter, whichever is later. In the instant case, the consumption bill Ex.C5 dated 01.04.2017  shows that the impugned exorbitant consumption is relating to the billing period 02.02.2017 to 01.04.2017 . Furthermore, the status of the last consumption history makes it clear that the last cycle average  remains as 31, 196, 322, 227, 222, 205, 168, 177, 172, 238, 399 as fully mentioned in the table above of last  two years   which clearly proves that the consumption of the complainant on the said connection never exceeded 399 units in last 12 billing months.

10.     Regulation 21.5.2 of Electricity Supply Code of 2014 (supra) provides that the  overhauling of the billing for period of six months will be on the basis of energy consumption of corresponding period of previous year and in case, the said consumption for corresponding period not available, then average monthly consumption of previous six months during which meter was functional shall be adjudged for overhauling of the accounts and as such, certainly violation of regulation 21.5.2 of rules and regulations 2015 referred above also  committed in this case.

11.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the  demand of Rs.23,340/- raised by the Opposite Parties vide bill dated 01.04.2017 (Ex.C5)  from the Complainant  is set aside and  quashed being violative of rules and regulations and principles of natural justice. However,  the Opposite Parties are at liberty to charge the Complainant by taking the maximum consumption i.e. 399 units  in the disputed bill. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay lump sum compensation  of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) to the Complainant on account of harassment, mental tension  and litigation expenses.  The complainant has already deposited Rs.30,000/- vide receipt dated 12 September, 2018 (Advance Payment) Ex.C16 with the Opposite Parties to avoid disconnection of the electric connection and as such, the  Opposite Parties are also directed to adjust or refund the amount, deposited by the Complainant against the disputed bill with the Opposite Parties.    The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

12.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as the situation  arising due to outbreak of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19).

Announced in Open Commission.