Vijay Kumar complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that the  directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to amend the wrong and illegal bill of high consumption shown by the faulty meter and correct the bill upto the amount of Rs.2500/- which is average amount of the earlier bills and pass the order of changing the faulty meter and compensate  him with Rs.20,000/- for litigation expenses and suffering of mental agony in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is living in the house which is originally owned by his father Sanjhi Ram in which an electricity connection of the opposite parties is installed having account no.G-31EF-931321L in the name of his father Sanjhi Ram who had died and the complainant is the beneficiary being legal heirs of Sanjhi Ram and the number of the installed meter in the house was 4728541. It was pleaded that the connected load of the complainant was 4.38 and on the basis of the consumption the bill for two months was coming approximately Rs.2500/- and in the month of July, 2017 as per the consumption the electricity bill was Rs.2510/-likewise in the month of May, 2017 the electricity bill as per consumption was Rs.2470/- and in the previous months the bill was near about this figure. It was further pleaded that the electricity bill dated 07.09.2017 shows the consumption of 10434 units while the previous consumption was 396 and bill was Rs.80,150/- which was unbelievable and as such complainant was shocked and came in tension. Complainant consulted with the electricity personnel and moved an application to the concerned S.D.O. on 11.09.2017 who marked the same to the concerned J.E. who further marked to concerned Lineman who gave his report on 14.09.2017 that the reading of the meter at present is 19809 and this reading itself cleared that from the last date of reading the consumption was shown by the meter 9000 which was not possible and on this concerned S.D.O. without clearing the reason of high consumption  as shown by the meter and without satisfying the complainant deducted Rs.35,220/- at his own level and demanded Rs.44,930/- from the complainant which was still wrong and illegal and too much higher from the consumption of the complainant. It was also pleaded that complainant requested the S.D.O. that their demand of Rs.44,930/- is not genuine from any angle and he was also not in capacity to pay this heavy amount. Complainant also requested that the electricity meter still not giving the correct figure of consumption and was showing almost 9000 units of consumption within month which shows that meter was faulty and on enquiry it transpired that meter put in the box was not having original number i.e.4728541. It was next pleaded that complainant was not informed at the time of changing the meter and on enquiry put by the complainant concerned J.E. did not give any satisfactory reply and officials of the opposite parties did not ready to amend the bill and were adamant to recover the illegal amount of the impugned bill, hence this complaint. 

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint as framed is not maintainable as complainant has came to the Forum with soiled hands and have suppressed the true and material facts from this Ld. Forum and as such complainant is not entitled for any relief from this Ld. Forum as prayed for. That complainant has got no locus standi to file the false and frivolous complaint. That this Ld. Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. That complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties. That complainant has filed false frivolous complaint against the opposite parties only to harass and victimize them and to drag them into unwanted litigation and as such opposite parties claim special costs from the complainant. On merits, it was stated that complainant had not approached the opposite parties for getting transfer of the connection in his name from the name of his father. It was further stated that earlier a Meter Reader namely Raj Kumar who was hand in globe with the complainant did not record the actual consumption only to gave undue benefit to the complainant and in the absence of the actual consumption proper bills were not issued to the complainant and after several complaints of the consumers had been heard and after thorough investigation Raj Kumar Meter Recorder was found guilty and as such he was removed from his post and thereafter a new Meter Recorder has been appointed at his place who recorded the actual consumption and as such bill dated 07.09.2017 amounting  to Rs.80,150/- including the previous electricity units consumed by the complainant and by showing the consumption of 10434 units was issued by the opposite parties. It was also stated that the meter of the complainant was sent to the M.E. Lab. which was found OK and after that an application was moved by the complainant in which opposite parties had described the electricity bill of 10434 units comes to Rs.80,150/- and surcharge was of Rs.1603/- and as such total amount comes to Rs.81,753/-. It was next stated that the amount of Rs.31,458/- had been refunded by the opposite parties and the remaining amount was legal and genuine one. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.     

4.      Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed his evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Subash Chander S.D.O. Ex.OP-1 and copy of M.E.Lab. report Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

6.       We have intently 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 (in accordance with the legislated provisions of Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present dispute/complaint. We observe that the complainant being the beneficiary and legal heirs of his father Sh.Sanjhi Ram was using the electricity meter having account no. G-31EF-931321L and his bill for the two months was coming approximately Rs.2500/- but the opposite parties issued him a bill dated 07.09.2017 amounting to Rs.80,150/- by showing the consumption of 10434 units whereas his previous consumption was 396 due to which complainant was shocked and he moved an application on 11.09.2017 to the S.D.O. concerned who marked the same to the concerned J.E. and he further marked the same to concerned Lineman Man who gave his report on 14.09.2017 which is mentioned on the application itself. To prove his grievance-contented charges qua his compliant vide his evidentiary affidavit (Ex.Cw1/A) and evidentiary documents (Ex.C1 to Ex.C12).  

7.       On the other hand opposite parties have contended in their written reply that one Meter Reader namely Raj Kumar who was hand in globe did not record the actual consumption and in the absence of the same proper bills were not issued to the complainant and after hearing the several complaints of the consumers the said Meter Reader was removed from his post and a new Meter Reader was appointed at his place who record the actual consumption and bill dated 07.09.2017 showing the consumption of 10434 units amounting to Rs.80,150/- including the previous units consumed by the complainant was issued by the opposite parties. Opposite parties have further contended that the meter of the complainant was also sent to the M.E. Lab. which was found OK and after that an application was moved by the complainant in which opposite parties had described the electricity bill of 10434 units comes to Rs.80,150/- and surcharge was of Rs.1603/- and as such total amount comes to Rs.81,753/- and amount of Rs.31,458/- had been refunded by the opposite parties. To prove their version opposite parties have filed its SDO’s affidavit (Ex.OP1) with all its rebuttals/denials endeavored to be proved vide the supporting document (Ex.OP2).

8.       From the above discussion we find that the meter reader of the opposite parties namely Raj Kumar committed default by not recording the actual consumption of the meter of the complainant due to which proper bills were not issued to the complainant by the opposite parties and when new meter reader was appointed by the opposite parties at his place, he recorded the actual consumption and impugned bill dated 07.09.2017 amounting to Rs.80,150/- of the consumption of 10434 was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. We further find that opposite parties have already refunded Rs.31,458/- to the complainant admitting their own fault. There is no document placed on record showing any action taken against the meter reader and as such we find merit in the complaint and also deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the titled opposite parties service providers to set-aside the impugned bill of 07.09.2017 for Rs.80,150/- of 10434 units and instead draw the actual consumption bill (on the basis of the connected load/past consumption history) upon the complainant. Opposite parties are further directed to remove the faulty meter of the complainant besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation (for causing harassment and expenses) and as cost of litigation. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 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. 

10.     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)

AUG. 03, 2018.                                                                                Member               

*YP*