Jeewan Singh complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that opposite party may kindly be directed to withdraw their illegal demand of Rs.107705/- in bill dated 22.11.2016 and further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation as mental pain, agony and litigation expenses etc. in the interest of justice.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that a domestic electric meter bearing No.G-47PT-390289W is running in his house which is in the name of his father Baja Singh who had since died and after his death he is using the said electric connection as beneficiary and paying the electric bills regularly with the opposite parties without any fault and as such he is the consumer of the opposite parties.  It was pleaded that status of the meter was OK and concurrent load was 1.00 K.W. but opposite party No.4 issued a bill dated 22.11.2016 annexure ‘A’ by imposing an heavy amount of Rs.107705/- as sundry charges and showing the consumption of 16270 units but the actual reading of complainant was only 261 units and after it complainant approached the opposite party No.4 and moved an application dated 07.12.2016 in which he stated that the previous reading of his meter was 2503 and new reading was 2764 units and the said application was marked to R.A. and concerned R.A. marked the same to concerned are J.E. who reported that the serial number of the meter was not matched at spot. It was further pleaded that complainant time and again approached the opposite party No.4 and requested them for correction of bill in question but the official of opposite party not to take any action regarding the matter in dispute. It was also pleaded that complainant is ready to deposit the bill as per the units consumed by him but the opposite parties threatening to disconnect the electric connection as  complainant is unable to deposit the such a huge amount and bill dated 22.11.2016 is illegal, null & void and is clear cut deficiency in service and trade practice on the part of the opposite parties because the complainant is unable to understand  that on what account such a huge amount has been imposed as sundry charge. It was next pleaded that it is very difficult to live without light as the children of the complainant are students and the family members of the complainant has a lot of need of electricity being a privilege and right but the opposite parties are pressuring the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.107705/- and raised threat regarding disconnection of electric supply if he failed to deposit the amount in question, if the opposite parties have succeeded in their illegal act then the complainant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury, hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complainant is not maintainable in the present form. That complainant had not approached the Forum with clean hands and had suppressed and concealed true facts. On merits, it was admitted that Baja Singh was the recorded consumer of the opposite parties and privity of contract and agreement etc. was with him and complainant had got no locus standie to file the present complaint. It was stated that complainant in the most cunning manner and in connivance with the meter Reader Sukhjinder Singh was suppressing actual consumption reading recorded by the meter and thus was not being billing on actual meter reading by the meter and the actual reading was being suppressed  in connivance with the consumer and meter reader and as such actual reading was not being conveyed and opposite parties were suffering in this manner by his act who was not discharging his duty faithfully and by his this act and conduct complainant was being billed wrongly. It was further stated that there was many complaints against the said meter reader who was deployed by the Cosyn Ltd. Gurdaspur and on complaint new meter reader Rajesh Kumar was engaged by the said Company who while billing during period 11/16 i.e. on 22.11.2016 had reported consumption recorded at meter by the meter No.83805 of A/c No.Pt 39/289W new reading at 16270 and old 2503 during 9/16 thus units actual standing recorded by meter came to 13767 units and complainant was billed on 22.11.2016 for Rs.1,07,698/- for period 11/16. It was also stated that on receiving the said bill complainant made request to check meter details on 07.12.2016 and Sh.Mandeep Singh J.E. was asked to report on A/c No.39/0298W who visited the spot on the same day and reported that details of meter installed at site do not match with details of the officially meter by the opposite parties as the meter at site was of Sr. No.207798, Cap 10.60 make flash reading 2771, whereas meter officially installed was Sr. No.83805 Cap 10.60 make flash thus same different meter was found as per report dated 07.12.2016 of the said J.E. and after confirming from official record regarding details of meter officially and inquiring and confirming the same from record the officially installed meter Pt 39/0289 w is Sr.No.83805 make flash Cap 10.60 and last reading recorded on 22.11.2016 was old 2503 and new 16270 meter not installed officially was of Sr. No.207798 Cap. 10.60 make flash reading 277/. It was next stated that this meter was illegally installed by the complainant by his own in order to escape from billing of Rs.1,07,698/- and after it, this meter was also reported to higher authorities vide memo No.2082 dated 23.12.2016 and complainant cannot escape himself from officially installed meter Sr.No.83805 i.e. actual dues of bills of 13767 units for Rs.1,07,898/-and the said demand of the opposite parties is legal and genuine one. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.     

4.      Counsel for the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.       Sh.Mandeep Singh Astt.Jr. Engineer has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 along with documents Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3. Smt.Suman Kumari R.A. has tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.OP-4 along with documents Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-12. Sh.Rajesh Kumar Meter Reader has also tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-13 alongwith documents Ex.OP-14 and Ex.OP-15.Sh.Baljit Singh S.D.O. has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.O-16 along with documents Ex.OP-17 to Ex.OP-19 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

6.       We have duly 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 provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We observe that the complainant had been quite a long time consumer of the opposite party service providers/corporation being the valid beneficiary of the 1.0 KW DS Connection in the name of his since demised father Baja Singh (Affidavit Ex.Cw-1/A) with Electric Meter # G47PT390289W, at his family residence. He has filed the instant complaint for statutory redressal of his grievance caused on account of receipt of an excessive consumption Bill dated 22.11.2016 for Rs.107,705/- (Ex.C1) followed by successive threats of disconnection by the opposite party Corporation. The evidentiary affidavit Ex.Cw-1/A and other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 as produced by the complainant satisfactorily and sufficiently prove the complaint-raised allegations.

7.       However, upon appearance, the OP service providers have somehow, deposed (Affidavits Ex.OP1, Ex.OP4, Ex.OP13 and Ex.OP16) implying thereby that the Meter Reader Sukhjinder Singh of the Meter Reading Contracted Co. M/s COSYN LTD., had connived with the present complainant to bill (charge) him for lesser (fake-reported) readings that upon detection in November’ 2016 did indicate amassed consumption of 13767 units that were duly billed for Rs.107,698/- and as such the complainant has been charged appropriately that he has been legally liable to pay as his actual consumption.

8.       We find that the opposite party has been conspicuously silent as to what legal/penal action (with its statutory outcome) they have taken against the Meter Reader employee, his employer Contractor Co. and the consumers involved in the alleged criminality or they have simply penalized the singled-out lone-complainant with charges/penalty etc. We are of the considered opinion that the opposite party service providers/corporation have acted in an arbitrary and unauthorized illegal manner in the present case and thus the present complainant shall not be liable to pay the same as his actual consumption. 

9.       We observe that it has been further alleged that the involved persons had burnt the Electric Meter in question to destroy the evidence of offence and it is not understood as to how the opposite party corporation has managed to ignore the same and to have let it go un-complained, in contravention of rule of law. Somehow, we find that the impugned demands as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the levied charges by the opposite party corporation has not been a matter of routine and also not in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per their own Sales & Distribution of Electricity Rules & Regulations and the details were neither detailed out in the impugned Bill nor any pre-notice was served, as requisite.

10.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and ORDER the opposite party # 3 (the SDO) to recall and set-aside the impugned Bill besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation (for the harassment and financial expense caused by the instant forced upon litigation) within a period of 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.

11.     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)

APRIL 11, 2018.                                                                    Member               

*YP*