Complainant Des Raj through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has submitted that meter bearing No.G-24DP-450025 was installed in the name of his father Sh.Tulsi Ram. The sanctioned load of the meter was 3.14 K.W.  He has further stated that opposite parties had sent the bill amounting to Rs.15,580/- to him as per old reading from 3.10.2015 and new reading 4.12.2015. He has also stated that the above said bill issued by the opposite parties may kindly be set aside and the correct bill as per his actual consumption may be issued. He has also claimed Rs.20,000/- for harassment as well as litigation expenses. 

2.       Notice of the complaint was issued to 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 approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts; complaint is not maintainable as Ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain/decide the same being time barred and complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. On merits, it was stated that one account No.DP-45/0025 was sanctioned in the name of the complainant and his electric meter was defective one in the month of August, 2014 and the opposite parties sent the bill as per the reading of the complainant of 409 units and in the month of June, 2014 the consumption of the complainant was 84 units, whereas the sanctioned load of the complainant was 3.14 from which it clears that the meter of the complainant was also defective in the month of June, 2014. It was further stated that meter of the complainant was changed vide MCO No.28.10.2014 and new meter was installed. It was also stated that in the month of June, 2015 the consumption of the complainant was 1000 units and in the month of August, 2015 the consumption of the complainant was 1259 units and as per this opposite parties revised the bill dated June, 2014 and August, 2014 and demanded the disputed amount as difference of units. It was next stated that amount demanded by the opposite parties was legal and genuine and there was no deficiency in service on their part and the bill of the complainant was overhauled due to the defective meter of the complainant.       

3.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Kamal Kumar Ex.C2 alongwith documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence.         

4. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Kuldeep Singh S.D.O. Ex.OP-1 alongwith Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
5. We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record along with that ignored to be produced to support/prove their respective ‘claims’ as duly pleaded by the present litigants in the light of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find the present complaint prompted on account of the impugned Electricity Consumption Bill Ex.C3 dated 04.12.2015 for Rs.15,580/- alleged as excessive by the complainant measured against his past ‘consumption’ and present ‘usage’ etc. The OP service providers have stated in written statement and its accompanying affidavit Ex.OP1 that the complainant Electric Meter was found ‘defective’ since the month of June’ 2014 and thus was changed vide MCO (Meter Changing Orders) dated 28.10.2014; (Ex.OP2). Thus, the OP Corporation had revised the Bills of June’ 2014 and August’2014 in line with and as per the actual consumption of electricity (by the complainant) during the corresponding periods in the Year 2015; hence difference of Rs.12573/= (as per the calculations in Ex.OP3) was added to the impugned Bill; (Ex.C3). However, the complainant has feigned ‘ignorance’ of any notice of the defective Meter and/or its ‘lab-tested’ report for the alleged defect etc along with the correctness/accuracy report (with reading) of the New Meter etc. Somehow, the OP service providers have not produced any ‘cogent evidence’ to support their allegations and also the claims of defects in Meter and its replacement etc and in its absence the same shall amount to ‘bald’ statements, only. Moreover, the respective Meter was placed in the common outside Joint Multi-Meter Box (locked in the OP custody) and the complainant has been paying the consumption Bills as drawn upon him throughout the year 2014 and how could he be charged for ‘defective’ Meter without any ‘notice’ of defective Meter and obtention of ‘consent’ for Lab Testing etc. for which even the Lab Test Report has not been produced on records. The OP Corporation has not even produced any such of its Sales Rules permitting the unilateral suo moto ‘revision’ of consumption Bills of the previous year on the strength and basis of the ‘current- year’ consumption. We do not find the ‘logic’ governing the issuance of the impugned consumption Bill to be legally acceptable as forwarded/put forth by the OP service providers in the written reply and the accompanying affidavit in the matter of settlement of accounts upon the alleged but un-evidenced detection of the defective Meter. The matter in issue (rules & adopted plan/basis of calculation) i.e., raising the future impugned Bills (in accordance with its own Supply & Tariff Rules) has been vehemently ignored (by OP Corporation) to be satisfactorily explained in its ‘written reply’ as well as in its deposition (Affidavit Ex.OP1). The present situation vividly depicts the callous and unruly state of affairs at the OP sub-division office-level pertaining to raising & issuance of the consumption Bills upon its consumers and the callous/negligent attitude of the OP officials towards its customers. The Exhibits Ex.C3 and further Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP3 fully corroborate the revealed deficiency in service on the part of the OP service providers. We are also displeased at the OP Corporation having forced (and accepted) a deposit of Rs.6,000/= from the complainant against the amount of Rs.3,000/= as per the forums interim orders dated 21.12.2015 to stay ‘disconnection’ till the final adjudication of the present complaint. The rebuttal defense in which the OP have opted ‘refuge’ is still the more amusing. Instead of having ‘suo-moto’ moderated the entire excessive amount of the affected Bills as duly revealed vide Ex.C3 as a result of ‘arbitrariness’ these were still being contested and that too on flimsy and legally immature grounds. Lastly, we hold the OP service providers ‘guilty’ of deficiency in service and thus liable to an adverse ‘award’ under the Act.
6. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the setting aside of the impugned consumption Bill Ex.C3 besides to pay him Rs.3,000/- as compensation for having caused un-necessary harassment to the complainant and Rs.2000/- for litigation expenses within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actually paid. The amount deposited by the complainant during the pendency of this complaint is also directed to be refunded to the complainant.

7.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

(Naveen Puri)

                                                                       President.                                                                                         

ANNOUNCED:                                           (Jagdeep Kaur)

April, 4 2016                                                        Member.

*YP*