Complainant Rahul sole Proprietor of Rahul Ice Factory 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 rectify the bill in dispute and also to withdraw notice memo No.478 dated 16.6.2015 and to receive only meter/service charges and not to recover the amount as mentioned in the bill and notice in dispute. Opposite parties be further directed to restrain from disconnecting his electric connection, till the final decision of the complaint. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, physical torture and financial loss caused by the opposite party to him due to deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is sole Prop of Ice Factory named and styled as Rahul Ice Factory, situated at Khanpur Chowk Pathankot. He himself is employee in this Ice Factory and running the same exclusively for earning his livelihood and his dependent Family members. He is small time entrepreneur. In the said Ice Factory there is an electricity connection No.G65MS650063F in the name of his father Dharm Pal, who had since expired and after his demise, he is the sole prop. of the abovesaid firm and running the same. He is using this connection, paying its bills regularly and as such is consumer of the opposite parties. He has further pleaded that opposite parties issued bill dated 21.11.2014 which is payable upto 3.12.2014 for the period 1.10.2014 to 4.11.2014 for Rs.1,53,140/- which is highly excessive, illegal, exorbitant because his Ice Factory was lying closed from 6.8.2014 on account of technical and mechanical defects in the machinery. He approached the opposite party no.2 and requested him to rectify the bill as his firm was lying closed since long and he was liable to pay only meter charges but the opposite party no.2 remarks in Ink on the bill for payment of Rs.1,19,602/- which was also illegal and much beyond the actual consumption. His Ice Factory remained closed for the last four months but in the instant bill meter reading has been mentioned as 3988 as old and 12265 as new which is quite strange. He has next pleaded that earlier the opposite parties issued bill dated 23.10.2014 and 19.9.2014 for Rs.19,330/- and Rs.31,520/- which he also paid. Prior to it the opposite parties issued bill dated 22.8.2014 for Rs.52,010/- but on his protest the same was reduced to Rs.40,000/-, bill dated 23.7.2014 for Rs.2,19,310/- for the period 3.12.2013 to 2.7.2014 and on protest the same was also reduced to Rs.1,06,550/-, bill dated 25.6.2014 for Rs.2,08,779/- and on protest the same was reduced on Rs.1,00,880/-, bill dated 21.6.2013 for Rs.2,86,448/- and on protest by him the same was reduced to Rs.1,51,175/-. From all the above mentioned, it was clear that opposite parties are issuing exaggerated and inflated bills since long without any proper checking and he was harassed by the opposite parties time and again for no fault on his part. Thereafter, he approached the opposite parties no.2 on number of times and requested them to rectify the bill and to receive the actual consumption service charges but they refused to admit his claim. Thereafter, he filed complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act  which was pending in this Ld.Forum being No.455 of 2014 but during the pendency of the complaint, he fell ill, so he could not appear in this Ld. Forum and the same was dismissed in default vide order dated 26.5.2015. After the dismissal of the complaint, the opposite parties issued another notice bearing memo No.478 dated 16.6.2015 for Rs.1,30,086 which was also illegal, null and void and not binding upon him and the same was liable to be set aside. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as such present complaint is liable to dismissal on this score only and present complaint is not maintainable in its present form. Complainant has already filed above titled complaint pertaining to matter in dispute before Hon’ble Forum vide complaint bearing CC No.455 dated 3.12.2014 which was dismissed by Hon’ble Forum vide its order dated 26.5.2015. Till date complainant has not filed any application for restoration of same complaint and as such said order of Hon’ble Court has become final. On merits, it was denied that complainant was himself employee of this Ice Factory and livelihood of his family was dependent on same. It was denied that consumer was small time entrepreneur. It was admitted that in the said factory there was an electricity connection bearing account No.G65 MS 650063F in the name of father of complainant namely Dharam Pal. However, it was not admitted that after demise of father of complainant he was sole proprietor of the said firm and running the same. Opposite parties have got no intimation regarding death of their consumer. It was denied that complainant was using this connection, paying its bills regularly and as such was consumer of opposite parties. Electric connection in the record of opposite parties was still running the name of Dharam Pal and complainant never applied for change of name of consumer nor intimated regarding death of his father. It was further submitted that demand made by opposite parties vide bill dated 21.11.2014 for an amount o Rs.1,53,140/- was legal and genuine one. It was further denied that ice factory in question was lying closed for last four months. It was next submitted that all the allegations of complainant of calling him in office by opposite party no.2 and assurance of rectification of bill in question was self concocted story. Allegations of complainant regarding factory lying closed since long are also after thought allegation. If complainant deliberately did not make payment of electricity bill in question to opposite parties then opposite party no.2 was duty bound to disconnect the electricity connection in question as per rules and regulations of department and there was no question of adopting coercive methods. None of the act of opposite parties has caused mental agony, physical torture or financial loss as alleged to complainant. Publication if any has been made by the complainant in any news paper same was absolutely false and is not based on true facts. All averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 and of  Ram Lal Ex.C2, alongwith other documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C23 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Sanjiv Kumar Saini, S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other document Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully examined the available evidence on the records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We find that the present dispute pertains to the high value consumption Bill drawn upon the complainant and that too without explaining the reason/cause of its ‘excessive’ amount. We find that the sole proprietor of the complainant firm has duly pleaded ‘running’ of the ice-factory business for earning his livelihood through self-employment and thus the present complaint is admissible as well as maintainable setting-aside the objection pleading of the OP service providers. However, we further find that the complainant had admittedly filed the first consumer complaint # 455/ 2014 for the same ‘cause of action’ as of the present complaint and that was ‘dismissed in default’ vide this Forum’s orders of 26.05.2015; further, the complainant did not move against the said ‘dismissal orders’ pertaining to his first complaint # 455/2014 and that bars him to file any other complaint for the same ‘cause of action’. We find that even the fact-based merit-examination of the record proceedings of the present complaint does not favor the complainant, much. The allegations as made out in the body of the complaint, in the absence of any cogent evidence, shall be nothing more than ‘bald-statements’. The ‘closing-down’ of the ice-factory with effect from 06.08.2014 on account of some ‘technical & mechanical’ defects in the machinery are not supported by any documentary evidence. The complainant has further failed to prove by way of cogent evidence the full payment of his electricity Bills for consumption up to 30.09.2014 and in its absence the Electricity Bill with effect from 01.10.2014 cannot be termed ‘excessive’.                     

7.       In the light of the all above, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.

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

                                                                                    (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                           President

ANNOUNCED:                                                         (Jagdeep Kaur)

November, 23 2015.                                                             Member                     

*MK*