Complainant Satnam 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 the illegal demand of the bill dated 9.9.2014 for Rs.22,925/- and to issue the correct bill and Rs.25,000/- be granted as compensation for the harassment alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to him. Opposite parties be further directed to restrain from disconnecting the electric connection till the final decision of the complaint.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing Account No.G 74 BF 59 1203 X in his name and has been paying the electricity bills regularly to the opposite parties. He is a farmer and has no other source of income for his livelihood except agriculture. The opposite parties issued bill dated 9.9.2014 for Rs.22,925/- whereas his consumption has been shown 834 units in the bill. He brought this fact to the notice of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 told him that the bill has been calculated wrongly whereas no arrears in his name stand. He visits so many times to the office of the opposite party no.2 to correct his bill and issue him a fresh bill of actual units but the opposite party no.1 has not paid any heed to his requests. The bill issued by the opposite parties is illegal and unwanted. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service and negligence 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 complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint with the intention to harass the opposite parties; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts intentionally and deliberately and the present complaint is not maintainable as the bill in dispute is the unpaid energy charges of the complainant. On merits, it was submitted that the meter of the complainant was changed and due to the ‘F’ Code the computer/system prepared the bill of the complainant on average basis except actual consumption. The opposite parties charged the charges of 492 units from May, 2013 to March, 2014 from the complainant, whereas the actual consumption of the complainant from May, 2013 to March,2014 is 2881 units, hence the opposite parties charged the disputed amount from the complainant by deducting the already paid charges. The opposite parties also issued the notice to the complainant in this regard, so the amount demanded by the opposite parties is legal and genuine. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.       Evidence of the complainant was closed by order dated 20.3.2015.

5.       On the other hand, Sh.Ram Gopal S.D.O. of opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       We find that the OP service providers have satisfactorily explained the criterion along with the details of the impugned Bill dated 09.09.2014 for Rs. 22,925/- and that negates the complainant’s allegation of ‘deficiency in service’ as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. It was clarified that the defective energy Meter of the complainant was removed Ex.OP3 (for replacement with a fresh one) and the consumption for the ‘direct supply’ period (sans Meter from May’2013 to March’ 2014) was assessed at 2881 units on ‘average consumption basis’ Ex.OP2 (as per the applicable Rules) and further the already paid 492 units were deducted from it to draw the impugned Bill for Rs.22,295/- duly preceded by Ex.OP4 the necessary pre-notice (with details of calculations etc). We find the above version as put forth by the OP service providers to be quite ‘fair & reasonable’ for the purposes of ‘recovery’ as well as ‘transparency’ and that should in no way infringe the complainant’s consumer rights as determined under the Act.

8.       In the light of the all above, we do not find any particular deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, however we are inclined to dispose of the present complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach the OP service providers to seek any details/clarifications etc (if any) pertaining to his domestic power connection # G74BF591203X and that shall be duly made available to him (by the OP service providers) within a reasonable time. The litigating parties here shall themselves bear their respective costs. 

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.             

                                                                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                          President

ANNOUNCED:                                                (Jagdeep Kaur)

JUNE 12 2015.                                                   Member                       

*MK*