Complainant Gurmej Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to withdraw their illegal demand of Rs.43,560/- raised vide impugned bill. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental torture and physical harassment suffered by him  alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has purchased a house alongwith domestic electric connection vide no.49SF230122P from Satpal son of Shaunka Ram and using the same and paying its bills regularly to the opposite parties and nothing is due against him upto 24.8.2015. Thus, he is consumer of the opposite parties. His load is 1.20 KW and there are total 29 points in his house including four ceiling fan, one fridge, one T.V., one Air Cooler and eight CFL bulb. His bimonthly bills are between the range of Rs.2000/- to Rs.4000/-.  He has further pleaded that now the opposite parties has sent the bill for the period 24.8.2015 to 21.10.2015 raising demand of  Rs.43,560/- showing the consumption as 5677 units whereas he has not consumed the electricity to such an extent. His meter is installed in box (Almirah) alongwith meter of other inhabitants and the key of which is in power and possession of the opposite parties official. He has next pleaded that he moved an application to the opposite party no.2 for correcting the impugned bill, but the officials of the opposite parties has refused to receive the application. On 30.10.2015, he  personally approached the opposite parties and requested them for correcting the amount as consumption as he is poor domestic consumer but they turned deaf ears towards his request and threatening him to recover the amount in question and to disconnect his electricity connection in case of non payment of demanded amount. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable; the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint as the complainant is not a consumer of the Corporation and the complainant has  filed a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint by concealing the true facts  from this Forum and as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party has rightly issued bill in dispute amounting to Rs.43,560/- showing the consumption as 5677 units consumed by the complainant. In bill dated 8/15 the old consumption of the consumer was 2814 units and new consumption was 3349 units and bill for 535 units was issued. Similarly in bill dated 10/15 old consumption was 3349 units and new consumption was 9026 units as such bill for 5677 units was issued. The bill in dispute is regarding the actual consumption made by the consumer. There is no illegality in the bill in dispute. The complainant was fully appraised regarding the demand of the corporation which is legal and genuine one and the complainant is bound to pay the amount demanded by the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, of Bishan Dass Ex.C2 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Jit Singh S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.

6.       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.C9 dated 21.10.2015 for Rs.43,560/- alleged as excessive by the complainant measured against his past ‘consumption’ and present ‘usage’ etc. The OP service provider instead of having the Meter ‘lab-tested’ for correctness and accuracy has simply justified the impugned Bill (in the written statement and the affidavit Ex.OP1) by terming it as record of actual consumption without putting into any efforts to examine reason of the ‘sudden’ enhancement much less its amicable solution. The Bill Ledger copies Ex.OP2 & Ex.OP3 are silent on the disputed situation whereas the hand written ‘consumption-data’ Ex.OP4 is simply shown to have its meter code as ‘o’ and that again conveys nothing in the absence of any supporting but cogent evidence. On the other hand, the complainant has proved on record through affidavits Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 that his electric Meter has been defective and ‘moved’ even with the main-supply switch kept on the off-setting and that is further corroborated by the previous consumption Bills Ex.C3 to Ex.C8 showing the impugned Bill Ex.C9 to be unusually/excessively high. Somehow, even the complainant’s request/report letters Ex.C10 & Ex.C12 did not move the OP service provider to check/lab-test the Electric Meter and that amply proves ‘unfair trade practice’ coupled with ‘deficiency in service’ at the OP’s end. The OP Corporation was naturally duty-bound to first examine/lab-test the complainant’s Electric Meter in the wake of the presently detected anomaly. 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 the 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 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.C2 to Ex.C12 fully corroborates the revealed deficiency in service on the part of the OP service provider. The rebuttal defense in which the OP have opted ‘refuge’ is still the more amusing. Instead of having ‘suo-moto’ lab-tested the Energy Meter in question the OP has termed the impugned Bill as having charged the ‘actual’ consumption and that lines up the OP service provider to an adverse ‘award’ under the Act.

7.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the titled OP service provider to withdraw the impugned Bill Ex.C9 along with an immediate refund of the amount, if any, deposited towards its payment/ part-payment etc besides to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as compensation for having caused him un-necessary harassment along with Rs. 2,000/- as the cost of litigation 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.

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)

March,14 2016                                                                 Member

*MK*