1.         This appeal by  opposite party  is directed against the  order dated 20.8.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh whereby the complaint bearing No.295 of 2009  filed by Gurbaz Singh , respondent /complainant was allowed  in the following terms ;  

“In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed and the same is accordingly allowed.  The OP is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him mental & physical harassment for issuing a wrong bill, which they ultimately had to correct.  The amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay Rs.1500/- as litigation cost and interest on the entire amount at the rate of 12% per annum since the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 3.3.2009 till its actual payment to the complainant.  

            The OP would be free to recover the amount from the official(s), who made wrong calculations and charged the complainant for 13 months & 23 days instead of 6 months  arrears, of course after giving appropriate opportunity of being heard as required under the rules. ”

2.         The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3..       The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated  thus ;

The complainant in the year 2004   got the electricity meter in question installed at his residence and did not have any dispute till October 2008 when he received  an inflated bill of  Rs.11,531/- and subsequent bill of Rs.15,867/- including old bill arrear.  He visited the OP number of times for correction of the bill but all in vain. To avoid   disconnection, he issued cheque No.566248 dated 4.2.2009 for Rs.11,531/- but the Sampark people refused to accept the local cheque which was as good as draft. Then he issued another cheque No.566249 dated 16.2.2009 for Rs.4,336/- and  the  total amount of both the cheques was Rs.15,867/- i.e. the billed amount but again the Sampark people refused to accept the payment.  Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum. 

4.             On the other hand, the case of OP before the District Forum was that  the electricity bill for Rs.11,228/- included Rs.5,679/- as current electricity bill from 10.9.2008 to 10.11.2008 and Rs.5,549/- as sundry charges being average charged for the period 10.7.2007 to 3.9.2008.  It was stated that the complainant represented to the department on 4.2.2009 for correction of bill which was due to be paid on 19.12.2008  and  since the payment after due date was acceptable only through cash or DD as per rules but he insisted for payment through cheque  as such it was  not  accepted.  It was further  submitted that after reviewing his consumption data , the sundry charges debited to the complainant and the amount of Rs.4,799/- including late payment surcharge were  adjusted and necessary intimation was also given to the complainant alongwith revised bill vide memo  No.954 dated 13.3.2009.  It  was  pleaded that the complainant was not entitled to any compensation for harassment, mental agony and inconvenience as the department had taken the immediate action for reviewing the sundry charges debited to the complainant  and he was intimated accordingly. 

5.           The learned District Consumer Forum after  going through the evidence  and hearing the   learned counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the  opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved against the said order, opposite party has    come up in this appeal.

6.         We have heard  learned counsel for the parties  and also gone through the file   carefully. It is proved rather an admitted fact on the file that the bill in dispute was issued to the complainant on 6.12.2008 against which he made representation dated 4.2.2009 and the said request was received by OP on 5.2.2009.  It appears that without waiting the result of his representation, complainant made the complaint before District Forum on 3.3.2009.  It is further evident on the file that the disputed bill was rectified on 12.3.2009 which was conveyed to the complainant vide letter No.954 dated 13.3.2009. But at the same time we feel that had the OP been vigilant while issuing the bills the mistake would not have crept in the bill. So, deficiency in service is there on the part of OP.  It is further evident that ultimately the dispute was over after excluding Rs.4779/-  from the sundry charges of Rs.5549/-.  Thus, keeping in view the petty amount involved in the dispute, we feel that the compensation  of Rs.5000/- awarded by the District Consumer Forum  to the complainant is on the higher side which is now reduced to Rs.2500/-. But for this reduction in the amount of compensation, the order passed by the District Consumer Forum is maintained.

7.         In the result, this appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.