Complainant Rita through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the necessary directions may be issued to the opposite parties to raze out the unnecessary bill of Rs.33,470/-.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant is having electricity connection bearing A/c No.G-25KL-961197H at Model Town Batala since long and she had been paying its bills regularly and her contract A/c No. is 30011444823. It was pleaded that opposite parties have imposed Rs.33,470/- dated 11.08.2015 upon her which is under challenge. It was further pleaded that since 11.08.2015 when complainant received the disputed bill she tried to make the opposite party No.1 understand that generally her bill comes less than Rs.1000/- but suddenly this has happened and she also found that there was an other consumer No.2357627 whereas her correct meter No. was 2357629 and the bill in question had been issued against the wrong number. It was also pleaded that complainant approached the competent authority time and again through black and white but all in vain, hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complainant had filed the false and frivolous complaint; complainant had not come to the court with clean hands and the present complaint is not maintainable as the bill in dispute is the energy bill. On merits, it was stated that the account no.KL-96/1197 was sanctioned in the name of the complainant. It was stated that bill dated 11.08.2015 of Rs.33,470/- was the energy bill of the complainant. It was further stated that opposite had produced the consumption data since February 2014 to November 2015 in which it was clear that amount demanded by the opposite party vide bill dated 11.08.2015 was the unpaid energy charges of the complainant. It was also stated that complainant had not deposited the 50% of the disputed amount as directed by the Ld. Forum while granting stay order. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Complainant had tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with document Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed her evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Manjit Singh SDO Ex.OP-1 along with document Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
6. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant Ms Rita has been a consumer of the opposite party # 1 Corporation (Service Provider) under the CP Act, by virtue of being holder of the Electricity Connection # G25KL961197H and A/c # 30011444823 for her domestic supply. Upon being aggrieved at the receipt of one allegedly excessive Bill dated 11.08.2015 for Rs.33,470/- she has preferred the present complaint alleging that her Electric Meter # has been 2357629 whereas Bills for Meter # 2357627 has been raised against her. We have examined the 2 nos. of Bills Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 whereas upon the letter Ex.C4 the OP official (upon physical inspection of Meter # at the orders of the SDO) has reported the correct Meter # to be as: 2357627. Further to top it all, we find that the Meter # on the impugned Bill Ex.C1 dated 11.08.2015 for the disputed amount of Rs.33,470/- is printed as: 2357622. The OP affidavit Ex.OP1 and also the copy of the A/c Ledger Ex.OP2 could not explain the apparent lapse amounting to deficiency in service on the part of the OP service providers.
7. In the light of the all above, we allow the present complaint by setting aside the impugned Bill (Ex.C1) dated 11.08.2015 for Rs.33,470/- and thus ORDER the opposite party service providers to refund the amount (if any) deposited against the same. We are not inclined to allow any cost and compensation to the complainant who has somehow not prayed for the same in her complaint.
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)
APRIL 21, 2016 Member.
*YP*
