Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Dharampal son of Buta Singh against opposite parties i.e. PSEB through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala azand also through its Sub Divisional Officer PSEB City Sub Division II, Kapurthala seeking direction against them to withdraw the impunged memo dated 21/1/2008 for the recovery of Rs.23619/- as illegal null and void and also monetary compensation for deficiency in service.<br /> 2. In nutshell facts in the complaint are that complainant was alloted electric connection bearing A/c No. 37/855 installed at Hotel Natraj, Kapurthala. He was shocked to receive memo dated 21/1/2008 from the opposite party for recovery of Rs.23619/- under head sundry charges and further shown in the subsequent bill dated 2/2/2008. He requested the opposite party PSEB to correct the bill but he was declined to do so without any plausible reason which amounts to deficiency in service entitling him for the reliefs claimed. <br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared, controverted the allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim . The factum of issuance of notice to the complainant dated 21/1/2008 for the recovery of Rs.23619/- on all of the defaulting amount pertaining against the account Nos.33/0099, A/c 53/2007, AC 53/110, AC 53/257, AC 37/890and AC 37/940 and at present complainant is owner and in possession of the property where the said electric connections existed. He has not taken NOC from opposite party NO.2 before purchase of said property with regard to outstanding amount against the said property and as such is estopped from disputing the said amount. Opposite party Board is therefore, well justified to recover the arrears om resp[ect of other electric connections referred to above from the complainant. <br /> 4. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence hiw own affidavit Ex.C1 and copy of bill and copy of notice Ex.C2 and C3.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite party produced in evidence affidavit Ex.O1 and details of accounts Ex.O2.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that impunged bill dated 2/2/2008 and memo dated 21/1/2008 containing amount of Rs.23619/- imposed under sundry charges and allowances is illegal, null and void and and instructions of PSEB which amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice causing mental agony and physical harassment for which he is not only entitled to withdrawal of impunged memo but also monetary compensation. On the other hand representative of opposite party Joginder Pal R.A. Justified for the recovery of Rs.23619/- rightly added in the bill under sundry charges and allowances because of failure of complainant to pay the arrears of outstanding amount pertaining to the Account Nos. 33/0099, A/c 53/2007, AC 53/110, AC 53/257, AC 37/890and AC 37/940<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We find a good deal of merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. The main grievance of the complainant is that impunged bill dated 2/2/2008 Ex.C2 for slapping upon him penalty pertaining to some other accounts for which he has got no concern. The representative of the opposite party has failed to establish from any record the connection or any concern of the complainant with the disputed account numbers having arrears of outstanding amount. The impunged memo Ex.C3 appears to have been issued under instruction No.179 in the Sales Manual under Electricity Supply Act, 1942 which have since been deleted and substituted by instructions of the year 1999. Opposite party has therefore, failed on both question of law and fact that complainant was not proved to have any concerned with the disputed account numbers having liability of outstanding arrears of the bills nor under the law. These arrears could be added in the bill Ex.C2 having independent connection of the complainant. Reliance is also placed upon a case reported as PSEB vs. Gurjit Kaur 2004(1) CLT page 622 wherein it has been clearly held as under :<br /> XX XX XX<br /> “Amount standing against one connection <br /> added to the bill of another connection and relating<br /> to the same complainant – no law shown which <br /> permitted the amount outstanding against one <br /> connection that could be added in the bill of other <br /> connection if the demand related to same consumer./<br /> 8. Therefore, claim of the complainant is standing on stronger footing as he has no connection or concern with the disputed accounts sought to be connected by the opposite party with the complainant <br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion impunged memo Ex.C3 and impunged bill Ex.C2 are hereby quashed for gross deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Board with further award of punitive damages of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- payable by the opposite parties to the complainant within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rrendered be supplied to the parties without unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced (Sh.Surinder Mittal) (Sh. A. k. Sharma.)<br /> 24.7.08 Member President.<br />