CWP No.14556 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.14556 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.08.2010 **** Suresh Kumar Gupta . . . . Petitioner VS. Permanent Lok Adalat and Others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. RK Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and is aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2010 (Annexure P1) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat at Ludhiana, imposing cost-cum-damages of Rs.35,000/- (half of the total costs) on him on account of the harassment and mental agony caused to a senior citizen (respondent No.2) who was the applicant before the Permanent Lok Adalat. (2). The elaborate and self-speaking order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat highlights the plight of thousands of consumers who might be the victims of CWP No.14556 of 2010.doc - 2 – harassment at the hands of the authorities like the petitioner. Suffice it to observe that respondent No.2 was subjected to repeated inflated bills and that too by sending them at a wrong address. Respondent No.2 sent series of written representations-cum- complaints informing his correct address and objecting to the exorbitant bills slapped on him. His objections against each bill were finally found to be correct on verification, nevertheless the authorities did not rectify their errors or conduct until respondent No.2 was forced to initiate legal steps. Had it been a case of an inadvertent mistake in one or two bills, this Court would have taken a lenient view in the matter. Contrary to it, an old person has been continuously harassed and humiliated for a period of two years from Febraury 2008 onwards. This fact is highlighted by the Permanent Lok Adalat with the following finding of fact:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “Bill payable by 19.12.2008 for Rs.17710/- prepared under ‘S’ code for consumption of 1033 units sent to the applicant but when the applicant approached the office of respondent No.4, the bills was rounded for Rs.6070/- which the applicant paid on 09.01.2009. Another bill payable by 16.2.2009 for CWP No.14556 of 2010.doc - 3 – Rs.7330/- for the consumption of 602 units under ‘S’ code served to the applicant but when the applicant again approached the office of respondent No.4 the bills was rounded for Rs.2385/- which was paid by the applicant on 4.3.2009. Similarly, another bill payable by due date of 20.4.2009 prepared under ‘S’ code for Rs.15460/- for hypothetical consumption of 2312 units (not actually consumed during the bill period) served to the applicant for which the applicant made the payment for Rs.3010/- on 9.10.2009 after getting it amended from the office of respondent No.1. Similar is the story of other bills which were served to the applicant till 23.12.2009. This harassment on account of bills for huge amount otherwise not due to the applicant continued up to 7.5.2010 even after the filing of this application by the applicant when the respondent No.4 at the instance of this Court overhauled the account of the applicant for the period from 22.2.2008 to 24.2.2010 and filed the statement to this effect on 7.5.2010 to the full satisfaction of the applicant.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “This plea taken by the respondents for justifying the preparation of bills under ‘S’ code for a long period of two years cannot be accepted and it is a mere excuse rather it proves the claim of the applicant regarding harassment suffered at the hands of CWP No.14556 of 2010.doc - 4 – respondent No.4 for not sending the bills on basis of actual consumption instead sent the huge bills prepared under ‘S’ code on the basis of average consumption. After shifting of meter outside the premises of the applicant on dated 26.9.2008, the preparation of first bill i.e. date 18.10.2008 prepared under ‘S’ code category on the basis of average consumption can be justified to some extent but thereafter preparation of bill under ‘S’ code on the average basis can not be justified. What to talk of bills prepared under ‘S’ code after shifting of the meter on 26.9.2008, but the earlier bills dated 24.4.2008, 25.6.2008 and 8.8.2008, when the meter was existing at the old site were also prepared on average basis. No justification has been put forward by the respondent NO.4 for not preparing these bills on the basis of actual consumption when the meter was existing at old site.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (3). In these circumstances, the imposition of cost and/or awarding Rs.70000/- to respondent No.2 as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him or directing the petitioner to share half of the cost amount warrants no interference by this Court. (4). Dismissed. CWP No.14556 of 2010.doc - 5 – (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 17.08.2010 vishal shonkar