Sanjeev Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite party No. 1 to refund the amount of Rs.3000/- as for the payment of the bill dated 23/1/2007. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having a electricity connection bearing account No. RK-28/0041 whereas the account is on the name of the father of the complainant who was expired in the year 2006. The opposite parties issued a bill dated 23/1/2007 and Gurdev Singh opposite party No. 1 was come to house of the complainant regarding payment of said bill and threatened the complainant that if he does not pay the bill he would remove the electric meter of the complainant. After the said incident the complainant afraid and he paid Rs.3000/- to the said Gurdev Singh in the presence of Baljit Singh, Ranjit Singh, Kaka Singh and Jaswinder Singh and requested to not to remove the meter of the complainant. After receiving the said amount the opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that he will make installment regarding the remaining amount of the said electric bill, but the said Gurdev Singh did not paid the said amount to the PSEB and they have come back on 22/3/2007 to remove the connection of the complainant regarding non payment of the bill. The complainant had requested the S.H.O., P.S. Saddar, Faridkot vide application dated 16/3/2007, S.P.(H) Faridkot on 16/3/2007 and officials of the concerned office of PSEB, Faridkot i.e. Xen, Faridkot, S.D.O. PSEB City Faridkot on 23/3/2007 but all in vain. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 5-4-2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. B.B. Khurana Advocate and filed written reply on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and 2 separately. The opposite party no. 1 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is totally based on highly improbable story and vexatious grounds. The complainant is not the consumer of the answering opposite party. The Hon'ble Forum hears and tries the complaints of consumer disputes natures. But the present complaint is of criminal nature, requiring witnesses, evidences and complex questions of law, which is not in the preview of this Forum. So the jurisdiction of this Forum is denied. The PSEB have constituted a separate Disputes Settlement Committee to redress the grievance of its consumer, but the complainant did not approach in writing to get his grievances redressed. So the complaint be dismissed. On merits the opposite party No. 1 submitted that the complainant is not the consumer of the answering opposite party as the connection is in the name of one Jagga Singh. It is correct that the bill dated 23/1/2007 was issued by the opposite party No. 2. The answering opposite party did not issue any oral or written threat to the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 is an ALM of the PSEB and has no authority to collect even a single penny on behalf of PSEB. Further he is not competent to install or remove electric meter of any consumer or issue any instructions/threat to the consumer to deposit due amount otherwise the connection of the consumer will be disconnected or his meter would be removed. So the allegation of receiving Rs.3000/- on behalf of PSEB by the answering opposite party is vehemently denied. The answering opposite party did not receive any amount from the complainant on behalf of PSEB. The answering opposite party did not go to the house of the complainant while on duty to install a new connection to Hardev Singh in the neighborhood of the complainant. The complainant objected to the installation of new connection that the supply cable has been purchased by the complainant himself and he would not allow anyone to use his cable for connection. After that only oral altercation took place between the complainant and the opposite party No. 1 in which the complainant threatened the opposite party No. 1 to be ready to face consequences. The so called witnesses are created onces just to frighten the opposite party No. 1. No documentary proof has been placed on record. If he has lodged a complaint with the police for action then he is estopped from filing the present complaint. So the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. The opposite party No. 2 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the PSEB have constituted a separate Disputes Settlement Committee to redress the grievance of its consumer, but the complainant did not approach in writing to get his grievances redressed. So the complaint be dismissed. The complainant is not consumer of the opposite party No. 2 as the connection is in the name of Janga Singh. The complaint is without any cause and merit. The complainant has not produce on record that he is the only LR to the above said connection and no one else has any interest to the above said connection. The complainant had not indemnified the opposite party that if any liability or financial loss arising out of the above claim over the connection by other LRs then only the complainant would be liable for that liability. The present complaint is of criminal nature so this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try this complaint. The complaint is of mis-joinder of necessary party i.e. answering opposite party No. 2. Nothing has been imputed against the opposite party No. 2 by the complainant so the answering opposite party may be deleted from the array of the opposite parties. The connection in question is already in arrears even before 10/05 for Rs.4235/- and the consumer has not paid the amount till date. A PDCO No. 20/69489 dated 8/1/2007 has been issued against him for the recovery of arrears. On merits the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party No. 2. The answering opposite party No. 2 has nothing to with what transpired between the complainant and the opposite party No. 1. Complainant is mature enough how and where to deposit the bill. The complainant never approached the opposite party No. 2 with written request to redress his grievances if any. No deficiency on the part of the PSEB has been alleged by the complainant. so the jurisdiction of this Forum is denied. The act and conduct of the complainant caused great mental tension and harassment and financial loss to the PSEB for which the opposite party No. 2 is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- alongwith litigation fee and also entitled to recover the outstanding amount of Rs.4235/- which is legal and lawful alongwith 18% interest from 8/1/2007 till realization of the amount. So the complaint be dismissed. <br /> 6. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of Baljit Singh Ex.C-1, his own affidavit Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 25/5/2007 Ex.C-3, copy of bill dated 23/1/2007 Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence. <br /> 7. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Amarjit Singh Gill AE Sub Urban Sub Division, Faridkot Ex.R-1, copy of PDCO Ex.R-2, copy of ledger Ex.R-3 and Ex.R-4, affidavit of Gulsher Singh Ex.R-5, affidavit of Jatinder Singh Ex.R-6 and closed their evidence. <br /> 8. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 9. The complainant submitted that he has handed over amount of Rs.3000/- to Gurdev Singh opposite party No. 1 for its deposit in the account of the complainant in the PSEB with regard to bill dated 23/1/2007. He has not deposited the same so the complainant is entitled to recover the same for depositing of the amount in his account. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that neither Gurdev Singh have received any amount nor PSEB has received any amount either from the complainant or from Gurdev Singh so the complaint is liable to the dismissed. <br /> 11. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the complainant is a holder of the account with the opposite party No. 2. He received bill Ex.C-4 dated 23/1/2007 for payment of Rs.4170/- uptill 9/2/2007. <br /> 12. The complainant in his affidavit Ex.C-2 have made deposition that the electric connection is in the name of his father who has expired in the year 2006. He received bill Ex.C-4 from the PSEB. Gurdev Singh came to the house of the complainant and told the complainant for payment of the bill amount. He threatened complainant to disconnect electric connection and remove the meter in case the payment is not made. Complainant made payment of Rs.3000/- to Gurdev Singh against the bill in presence of Baljit Singh, Ranjit Singh, Kaka Singh and Jaswinder Singh. Gurdev Singh did not deposit the amount in the account of the complainant. Gurdev Singh and others from PSEB came to the house of the complainant to disconnect the electric connection on 22/3/2007. The complainant requested SHO, P.S. Saddar, Faridkot vide application dated 16/3/2007, S.P. to Faridkot and PSEB Xen Faridkot on 23/3/2007 with regard to above noted facts but no action was taken. Affidavit of complainant Sanjeev Singh have been supported by Baljit Singh witness in whose presence transaction took place. <br /> 13. The evidence of the above noted witness of the complainant is reliable so simple denial in the affidavit of Gulsher Singh Ex.R-5 and affidavit of Jatinder Singh Ex.R-6 by the witnesses of the Gurdev Singh is not helpful to the opposite party No. 1 Gurdev Singh in any manner. As per affidavit of Gulsher Singh he was not authorized to collect money with regard to payment of electric bill amounts. He was not authorized to remove the meter. In such like circumstances Gurdev Singh is held to have misused his authority by receiving amount of Rs.3000/- from the complainant in illegal manner. Rather Gurdev Singh in his affidavit has admitted that he has gone to the house of Hardev Singh son of Surjit Singh in the neighborhood of the complainant. The complainant objected to the installation of new connection that supply cable has been purchased by the complainant himself and he would not allow anyone to use his cable for connection, thereafter only oral altercation took place in between the complainant and the Gurdev Singh opposite party No. 1, in which the complainant threatened the answering opposite party No. 1 to ready to face consequences. So presence of Gurdev Singh at the spot has been proved. Gurdev Singh or PSEB has not placed on the file as to on which date in what connection Gurdev Singh has gone to the house of Hardev Singh. Perhaps due to the reason that the date may co inside with the allegations of the complainant. <br /> 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint is accepted. Accordingly the opposite party No. 1 Gurdev Singh is directed to pay the amount of Rs.3000/- alongwith compensation of Rs.500/- in total Rs.3500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite party No. 1 Gurdev Singh shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the decision of the complaint till the realization of the amount. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 3/10/2007<br />