Complainant Baltej Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the bill dated 30.12.2014 amounting to Rs.7680/- be quashed. He has also claimed Rs.70,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by him. He has also claimed Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses all in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having connected load of 5.266 K.V. vide account no.G-44ME-472113M and he is paying the bills regularly to the opposite parties. It was pleaded that complainant was paying Rs.1800/- per month on average basis to the opposite parties for the last two years and he had never been defaulter of the opposite parties. It was further pleaded that complainant paid the electricity bill amounting to Rs.3720/- for the period from 14.9.2014 to 13.11.2014 for 60 days vide receipt dated 17.11.2014 for using the consumption of 220 units for two months. It was next pleaded that complainant was surprised when he received the bill dated 30.12.2014 for 47 days amounting to Rs.7680/- for average consumption of 594 units. It was also pleaded that the load of the house of the complainant was enhanced from 2.440 K.W. to 5.266 K.W. and after that he has received the first bill amounting to Rs.7680/-. It was pleaded that after receiving the above said bill complainant approached the opposite parties for explanation of illegal amount which was imposed in the bill dated 30.12.2014 but they failed to give any explanation of the amount of Rs.7680/- which was illegally imposed in the bill in question. It was also pleaded that opposite parties are habitual to harass the complainant illegally by putting the exaggerated amount in the current of the complainant and by involving him in a false litigation. It was further pleaded that earlier also the opposite party no.2 put the exaggerated amount in the bill of the complainant which was corrected after the directions of this Hon'ble Forum vide order dated 18.3.2014. It was next pleaded that as per Rule 110.2.1 of Sales Regulations opposite parties cannot put the arrears in the current bill of the consumer but the opposite parties violated the above mentioned rules and regulation of the Sales Manual. It was pleaded that the bill dated 30.12.2014 amounting to Rs.7680/- is illegal, null & void, hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply stating therein that the sanctioned load of the complainant was 2.44 K.W. and not 5.266 K.W. as alleged by the complainant. It was submitted that complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3720/- on 17.11.2014 as part payment when a sum of Rs.5056/- were outstanding against him. It was further submitted that the connection of the complainant was checked by Sh.Hirdepal Singh Bajwa AEE alongwith staff on 19.7.2014 and found that the sanctioned load of the complainant was 2.44 K.W. whereas the load checked at the site was 5.266 K.W. and as such the load of the complainant was regularized by charging service connection charges of Rs.2250/- and ACD worth Rs.1110/-. It was stated that copy of the checking report was delivered to the complainant but he refused to sign the same. Officials of the opposite parties performed their official duty and have no personal grudge or enmity with the complainant. After the above said checking complainant was duly served through memo no.3090 dated 25.7.2014 vide which he was asked to deposit Rs.3360/- for using extra load and for its regularization but he failed to deposit the same. It is worth mentioning here that previously a bill dated 17.9.2014 for the period from 11.7.2014 to 14.9.2014 for a sum of Rs.2300/- was issued to the complainant but he failed to deposit the same with the opposite parties and Rs.200/- as surcharge was charged from the complainant and a sum of Rs.2500/- was added in the bill dated 13.11.2014 for the period from 14.9.2014 to 13.11.2014 and a sum of Rs.5056/- were worked out and out of this complainant deposited only a sum of Rs.3720/- on 17.11.2014 and the remaining amount of Rs.1326/- still remained outstanding against him. It was further stated that a bill dated 30.12.2014 for the period from 13.11.2014 to 30.12.2014 was issued to the complainant and the above said amount of Rs.1326/- was also charged in this bill which worked out Rs.7690/- but the complainant failed to deposit the same and a surcharge of Rs.348/- was also charged from him and a sum of Rs.8038/- were worked out and out of this amount complainant only deposited a sum of Rs.2676/- with the opposite parties and the balance amount of Rs.5722/- was still recoverable from the complainant. It was also stated that the bill dated 30.12.2014 is legal and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5.       Opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Harmanpreet Singh Gill S.D.O. Ex.OP-1, affidavit of Hirdepal Singh Bajwa AEE Ex.OP-2 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-3 to Ex.OP-5 and closed their evidence.              

6.       We have duly considered the pleadings of both the parties; heard the arguments advanced by their counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       We find that the OP service providers have satisfactorily explained the criterion along with the details of the impugned bill dated 30.12.2014 for Rs. 7680/- Ex.C3 and that negates the complainant’s allegation of ‘deficiency in service’ as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. The connected load was enhanced (as regularized from 2.44 KW to 5.266 KW in July’ 2014; Ex.OP2 & Ex.OP3) at the complainant’s house as a result of installation of additional Electrical appliances including the air-conditioner etc. and naturally that up-lifted the amount of the consumption Bill. Moreover, the complainant has (many a times as per records) paid only the partial amounts of his consumption Bills Ex.OP1, Ex.OP5 & Ex.C5 and we find the OP service providers within its legal rights to carry forward these ‘arrear-amounts’ to the succeeding Bills under the head ‘arrear’ for the purposes of ‘recovery’ as well as of ‘transparency’ and that should in no way infringe the complainant’s consumer rights (even remotely) as envisaged under the Act.

8.       In the light of the all above, we are inclined to dispose of the present complaint with continued liberty to the complainant to approach the OP service providers to seek any details/clarifications etc. (if any) pertaining to his domestic power connection # G44ME472113M and that shall be made available to him (by the OP service providers) within a reasonable time. The litigating parties here shall themselves bear their respective costs.

9.       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)

June 22, 2015.                                                                 Member.

YP.