Complainant Dilbagh Masih has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to  withdraw the notice amounting to Rs.9935/- vide memo No.556 dated 16.02.2018. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.10,000/- as mental agony and harassment to him, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he belongs to a poor family and he is doing work as Labourer at Brick Kiln. He has sold his house in the month of October 2016 to Baljinder Singh son of Darshan Singh, resident of village Bhule Chakk, Tehsil and Distt.Gurdaspur. In the month of October 2016, he has moved an application to opposite party no.1 to disconnect the electric connection bearing No.PT38/439 as he has sold his house to Baljinder Singh son of Darshan Singh. The meter was installed in the electricity Almirah outside his house in the street. After moving the application to the opposite party in the month of October 2016 last bill amounting to Rs.13001/- has been issued to him and he has paid the same on 20.2.2017. Opposite parties has issued a notice regarding the dues pending against the present complainant amounting to Rs.9935/- vide notice bearing memo No.556 dated 16.02.2018, even after the lapse of more than one year. He has not consumed the electric power from the abovesaid electric connection, after the month of October 2016 and the notice issued by the opposite party is null and void, which is totally wrong and against the law.  Actually, the story is that he moved the application in the presence of SDO PSPCL Tibber, Tehsil and Distt.Gurdaspur i.e. opposite party no.1 regarding the disconnection of electric connection in the month of October 2016 to the lineman namely Atma Singh i.e. opposite partyno.4 and the opposite party no.4 has given the receipt of payment of Rs.13001/- on dated 20.02.2017. Opposite parties are adamant with their act and conduct and are pressing hard to deposit the illegal amount of Rs.9935/- to the opposite parties. He has requested the opposite party to withdraw the illegal notice amounting to Rs.9935/- vide memo No.556 dated 16.02.2018 by admitting his legal and genuine claim but the opposite party refused to admit the genuine claim. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint.

3.         Notice issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present Form. He has filed the false and frivolous complaint with the intention to usurp the money in question. He has not approached this Ld.Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts deliberately. On merits, it was submitted that the amount demanded by the opposite parties is the unpaid energy charges of the complainant. In the month of February, 2017, the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.13001/- as electricity bill to the opposite parties after that the complainant not paid the bill in the month of March, May and July, 2017, hence the opposite parties disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant vide PDCO no.39/2007 dated 21.7.2017 but the opposite parties charged the bill from the complainant from September, 2017 to January, 2018 on minimum charges basis being defaulter consumer. The amount demanded by the opposite parties is legal and genuine and unpaid energy charges of the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. It was also admitted that the opposite parties issued memo No.556 dated 16.2.2018 for the recovery of Rs.9935/-. It has further submitted that actually, the opposite party no.4 has not received any application from the complainant. Moreover, the opposite party no.4 is not the competent authority to receive any application for disconnection of the electric connection. The complainant did not move any application to the opposite parties as alleged and falsely implicated the opposite party no.4 by levelling false allegations. The opposite parties have no personal interest in the matter in dispute, neither they know personally the complainant nor they have any enmity with the complainant. Hence, the question of imposing false amount on the complainant does not arise. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with cost.

4.       Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

5.     On the other hand, ld.counsel for the opposite parties has tendered into evidence affidavit of Er.Ram Gopal S.D.O. PSPCLtd. Ex.OP-1 alongwith copy of detail Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.   

6.       After considering the documents produced on the file, this Forum has observed that complainant has produced Ex.C-1 i.e. affidavit of complainant and Ex.C2 is the Memo issued by opposite parties in which a demand of Rs.9935/- is made as remaining amount of electricity bills. Ex.C-3 is the receipt of Rs.13001/- dated 20.2.2017 deposited by complainant. As alleged in the complaint, the complainant has moved an application to PSPCL authorities for disconnection of electric connection as he has sold the house to some other person. But this allegation is denied by opposite parties in their written reply and complainant has not produced any document to prove how and when he applied for disconnection of electricity connection. Nowhere complainant has produced any sale agreement to prove that he has sold his house to some other person. All are oral allegations. The receipt of last payment made by complainant is dated 20.2.2017. The document Ex.C-2 which is a memo issued by PSPCL dated 16.2.2018 proves that opposite parties have not received any request for disconnection of electricity connection. Rather in their written reply opposite parties have admitted that they have already disconnected the connection of complainant vide PDCO No.39/2007 dated 21.7.2017 and the amount claimed from complainant is due against him as energy charges of a defaulter consumer.  And the same is proved by Ex.OP-1 which is the affidavit of Er.Ram Gopal. Ex.OP-2 is another document of opposite parties in which a detail of the old and new reading and the balance amount is provided. This document clearly proves that PDCO No.39/2007 dated 21.7.2017 was issued to complainant though the same has not been produced on the file by opposite parties.

7.        From above all discussion, we come to the conclusion that complainant has miserably failed to prove his allegations for want of documentary evidence. Rather opposite parties have been able to rebut the allegations leveled against them and in this way it is established that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

8.       In view of it, the complaint in hand is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

9.        Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

ANNOUNCED:                  (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

 March 19, 2019.                   Member                         Presiding Member

 MK