ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Rakha Ram has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for taking necessary action into the matter and to direct the O.P. to pay him a sum of  Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, physical harassment & financial loss caused to him and another sum of Rs.20,000/-  as litigation expenses.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is resident of Village Patti, P.O. Manakpur, Tehsil Nangal Dam, District Rupnagar. An electricity connection vide meter No.R15GS630215 has been installed at his residence for domestic use. Since he belongs to Kabirpanthi Caste/Julaha (Scheduled Caste), therefore, he has been granted concession of 200 units of electricity, free of cost. It is further stated that his consumption of electricity was less than 200 units, as such, he used to receive the electricity bill in minus, after grant of above said concession to him. The old meter installed in his premises was working properly, but on 24.5.2015, the officials of the O.P. replaced the said meter with an electronic meter. Thereafter, the O.P. had wrongly issued him a bill for a sum of Rs.28810/-. He approached the O.P. for rectification of the said bill, but its officials told him that he has to pay the amount of Rs.28810/-, as mentioned in the said bill. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written version to the complaint taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law; that the complaint has been drafted against the provisions of the law as the same has not been verified; that the complainant has failed to file an affidavit alongwith the complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that a domestic connection bearing A/c No. CA3000/134738 is running in the name of the complainant. It is stated that on 24.5.2015, the old meter bearing No.4066425 installed at the premises of the complainant was removed and on 25.5.2015, a new meter bearing No.8273825 was installed in its place. As per reading of the old meter, the consumption of units was recorded as13889 as on 24.5.2015. The ME lab has not found any defect in the old meter. Accordingly, the O.P. has issued a bill to the complainant as per consumption recorded in the said meter.  As such, the bill for an amount of Rs.28810/-, which has been raised as per the units consumed by the complainant is recoverable from him.  Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, with costs, stating the same to be without any merit.

4.                On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. C1 and photocopies of various documents as Ex. C2 to Ex. C7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Balam Singh, Revenue Accountant, Ex.OP1, various documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-14 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the O.P. and gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.                    At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed because the same has not been verified by the complainant and he has not filed even supporting affidavit alongwith the same.

                   From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the complainant had filed affidavit alongwith the complaint, i.e. on 26.11.2015. Even the complaint as well as the affidavit bear stamps of this Forum, which have been duly signed by the Learned Member of   this Forum on 27.11.2015, the date when the said complaint was put up for hearing before the Bench. Nodoubt, verification of the complaint has not been made by the complainant, it may be stated that the same was a procedural lapse. It is a settled principle of law that every lis should normally be decided on merits than by resorting to hyper technicalities. When hyper technicalities and substantial justice are pitted against each other then latter shall prevail over the former. The procedure is, ultimately, meant to advance the cause thereof than to thwart the same. As such, the submission made by the learned counsel for the O.P. for dismissal of the complaint for want of verification of the same cannot be accepted.

7.                Now coming to the merits of the case, admittedly, the old meter installed in the premises of the complainant was removed on 24.5.2015 and in its place a new electronic meter was installed on 25.5.2015. After the installation of the new meter, the O.P. had issued bill dated 28.8.2015 (Ex. C3/Ex.OP-6). From the perusal of the said bill, it is apparent that it was issued for the period from 8.5.2015 to 28.08.2015 i.e. for a period of 112 days. In the said bill the O.P. has bifurcated the consumption of units, as recorded by the old meter, and also the same as recorded in the newly installed meter. In the column meant for meter reading, in its sub column, ‘Old Status’ the reading of the newly installed meter, which was installed on 25.5.2015, has been written as 1 and in the sub column ‘New Status’ the  reading has been shown as 696 units i.e. for the period from 25.05.2015 to 28.8.2015, whereas in the column meant for meter reading, in its sub column, ‘Old Status’ the reading of the old meter, which was removed on 24.5.2015, has been written as 9962 (which is correct as per the previous bill dated 3.5.2015 which was issued for the period from 17.02.2015 to 08.05.2015 i.e. for 80 days)  and in the sub column ‘New Status’ the  reading has been written as 13889 meaning thereby that the complainant had consumed the electricity to the extent of 3927 units(13889-9962) during  the period from 9.5.2015 to 24.5.2015 i.e. for a period of 16 days only. Thus, the only question for consideration before us is—as to whether the complainant had consumed 3927 units of electricity within a period of 16 days only.

                   From the perusal of copies of bills, Ex. OP-7 to Ex. OP-12 produced on record by the O.P. itself, it is apparent that the sanctioned load of the connection installed in the premises of the complainant is 0.440 KW and the  said bills were raised in minus. As per version of the complainant, the sanctioned load of his electricity meter is very low and he consumes electricity for running a fan & a tube light only. It is not the case of the O.P. that the complainant was found making unauthorized use of the electricity from the said connection during the said period of 16 days. It is not out of place to mention here that the O.P. has issued the bill in dispute on the basis of the reading, as recorded in challan dated 9.7.2015 Ex. OP-14, which was prepared at the time of sending the old meter to the ME Lab. However, neither it has been pleaded nor proved on record that at the time of removal of old meter, from the premises of the complainant on 24.05.2015, the concerned official(s) of the O.P. had recorded the reading of the said meter before its removal and had taken signatures of the complainant or his representative to that effect. Even no document has been placed on record by the O.P. to prove that the said meter was properly sealed & packed after its removal, before sending it to the M.E. Lab. Even this fact cannot be ignored that previously also, the complainant had never consumed electricity more than the 200 units, and always the bill was raised in minus, as he has been granted concession to use 200 units of electricity, free of cost, as is evident from the copies of previous bills dated 15.05.2012 20.08.2012, 07.12.2012, 02.01.2015, 19.2.2015, 3.5.2015, placed on record by the O.P. itself as Ex. O.P.12, Ex. O.P. 11, Ex. O.P.10, Ex. O.P.9, Ex. O.P.8,  Ex. O.P.7 respectively. With these facts & circumstances, it is not believable that the complainant had actually consumed 3927 units of electricity within a period of 16 days. Accordingly, we hold that the complainant is not at all liable to pay the amount of Rs.28,810/-, raised as arrears in the bill dated 30.10.2015.

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint and set aside the impugned demand of Rs.28810/-, raised by the O.P., in the bill, Ex. C2, issued to the complainant, depicting the same as arrears. The parties are left to bear costs of their own.

9.                The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED                                                                      (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated          :18.03.2016                                                PRESIDENT

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.