DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR. Complaint No. 473 Instituted on: 14.09.2017 Decided on: 04.01.2018 Gurmail Singh son of Shri Nikka Singh, resident of Village Banbhaura, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. ..Complainant Versus 1. AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division, Sub Urban, Malerkotla, District Sangrur. 2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. The Mall, Patiala through its CMD. ..Opposite parties For the complainant : Shri Ashi Goyal, Adv. For opposite parties : Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate. Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President Sarita Garg, Member Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President. 1. Shri Gurmail Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining one domestic electricity connection bearing account number L-36BB/67/0770L which was obtained under scheduled caste category which was having a load of 0.60 KW. The grievance of the complainant is that the OPs during the checking mentioned the load of more than 1 KW, which is wrong and illegal. Due to mention of excess load, the OPs issued bill dated 6/2017 for Rs.836/- and bill dated 8/2017 for Rs.955/- and further added Rs.1000/- as sundry charges, which are said to be illegal and without any basis. The complainant though approached the OPs for withdrawal of the demand of Rs.2790/-, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to withdraw the said demand of Rs.2800/- and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses. 2. In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs. It is further admitted that the OPs issued the bills in question as mentioned in the complaint. It is admitted that the sanctioned load of the complainant was 0.50 KW and the complainant was entitled to get 200 units per month being free electricity. But, the connection of the complainant was checked by Addl. Assistant Engineer on 20.5.2017 and detected the connected load as 1.126 KW, as such, the rebate of 200 units free supply could not be granted and further after receiving the report, the OP number 1 issued notice number 1064 dated 22.5.2017 for making the payment, but the complainant did not pay the same. As such, it is stated that the demand has rightly been raised against the complainant. Lastly, the Ops have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs. 3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. 4. We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons. 5. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by obtaining the electricity connection in question under the category under which 200 units per month were free. It is further not in dispute that the Ops issued bills dated 8/2017 for Rs.2790/-, copy of which on record is Ex.C-3, which clearly reveals that the sanctioned load of the complainant is 1.00 KW and further it reveals that an amount of Rs.836/- as previous balance and Rs.1000/- have been added as sundry charges. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that since the connected load of the complainant was found to be 1.126 KW, as such, the rebate of 200 units per month granted to the complainant was withdrawn. We have also perused the copy of checking report Ex.OPs/1, but it no where bears the signature of the complainant. There is nothing on record produced by the Ops in whose presence, the meter in question was checked nor there is any documentary evidence to support such a contention of the OPs that the electricity meter of the complainant was checked and the connected load was found to be more than 1.00 KW. As such, we are of the considered opinion that this checking report has no value in the eye of law. As such, we feel that the ends of justice would be met if the Ops are directed to revise the bills of the complainant as previously charged i.e. on 0.50 KW load basis. 6. In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to withdraw the bill dated 10.8.2017 for Rs.2790/- and further to issue fresh bill taking the load as 0.50 KW only as the Ops were charging previously. We further direct the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3000/- in lieu of compensation and litigation expenses. 7. This order of ours shall be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records. Pronounced. January 4, 2018. (Sukhpal Singh Gill) President (Sarita Garg) Member