Complainant Gurjit Singh through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to withdraw the impugned demand raised vide bill dated 25.11.2014 and to set aside/quash the bill in question and directed the opposite parties to issue bill after making proper consumption and also to withdraw their illegal threat to disconnect the electric connection. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.   

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he has got installed an electric connection at his house  bearing account No.G 44 MF 451089N and has been paying the electricity charges to the opposite parties regularly without any default he is hiring the services of the opposite parties and thus he is consumer of the opposite parties. His consumption was of 500 to 600 units per bill. He has further pleaded that the opposite parties have issued a bill dated 25.11.2014 to him amounting to Rs.76,250/- whereby the opposite parties have demanded the said impugned amount from him for 47 days and consumption as shown to be 389 units, which is wholly illegal, null and void and is not binding upon him. His electric meter has been installed by the opposite party outside the house and is under the lock and key of the opposite parties. Thereafter, he has approached to the opposite party no.3 and requested them to withdraw the impugned bill, but the opposite party refused to admit his claim and threatening to disconnect the electricity supply in the event of non payment of the impugned demand. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties he has suffered great mental agony and he has suffered mental as well as physical harassment from the hands of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint written reply through the counsel by taking the preliminary objections that the demand of Rs.76,250/- vide bill dated 25.1.14 raised by the opposite parties is a legal and genuine demand as it is based on the actual consumption of the complainant; the complaint is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of the necessary party as the bills were issued through Spot billing System by C.S.S. Tech. Energy; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands as he has suppressed some material facts from this Hon'ble Forum., the complainant never follow the PSPCL complaint handling procedure under Regulation No.25 of Supply Code 2014 and the complainant has filed a false, frivolous complaint and having no merits, be dismissed with costs. On merits, it was admitted that an electric connection was installed in house of the complainant bearing Account No.G44 MF 45 1089 N with new Account No.3000161844 and he is hiring the services of the opposite parties, hence he is consumer of the opposite parties and his connection is a domestic one. Actually, when he received his electric bill dated 4/8/2014 amounting to Rs.54,590/- then he moved an application to the opposite party no.3 on 17.9.2014 and his  application was marked to the Er.Gulzar Singh J.E. Who checked the electric meter of the complainant and found that his electric meter was working properly and there was no need to change his electric meter. It was also admitted that the opposite parties issued a bill dated 25.11.2014 to the complainant amounting to Rs.76,250/- for 389 units of 47 days. Actually, the bill dated 25.11.2014 amounting to Rs.76,250/- also included Rs.72,414, the previous outstanding bill of the complainant since December 2012. The bill in dispute is totally based on the actual consumption of the complainant.  He has paid since December 2012 only Rs.30,807 on 22.11.2013 and Rs.38,125/- on 15.1.2015 on the direction of Hon'ble Court. Hence the bill in dispute is based on the actual consumption of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.       

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 and of Sh.Rajinder Singh Ex.C2, alongwith other documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C15 and closed the evidence.

5.       Opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Harmanpreet Singh Gill S.D.O. Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence.

6.       Both the parties have produced/filed their respective affidavits and other related documents in evidence to support their pleadings/objections on record and the learned counsels for the litigants have duly put forth their respective arguments. We have carefully considered and perused all the available material while adjudicating the present complaint.

7.       From the pleadings and evidence on record it is an admitted case of both the parties that complainant being holder of one electric connection bearing account No.G 44 MF 451089N is a consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 25.11.2014 amounting to Rs.76,250/- for  389 units of 47 days only being excessive and illegal. The case of the complainant is that he has never consumed such a huge energy.

8.        On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the bill raised is a legal and genuine demand as it is based on the actual consumption of the complainant. In fact the bill dated 25.11.2014 amounting to Rs.76,250/- also included Rs.72,414/- the previous outstanding bills of the complainant since December 2012. The complainant is habitual defaulter. He has paid since December 2012 only Rs.30,807/- on 22.11.2013 & Rs.38,125/- on 15.1.2015 on the directions of DCF, Gurdaspur. The impugned bill is based on the actual consumption of the complainant.

9.        From the entire above discussion we also find that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has not been paying his bills regularly. The bill in question is raised on the basis of actual consumption by the complainant. Hence finding no merit in the present complaint we order for its dismissal. No order as to costs.

10.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                                                                              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                    President.

Pronounced:                                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)

August,14 2015                                                            Member.

MK