7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We find considerable merit in the contentions of counsel for the complainant. Apropos the status of the complainant as a "consumer" as defined in Section 2(i)(d) of the Act ibid it is evident that complainant being Proprietor of Commission Agent has been availing electricity services for consideration on payment of electricity bills to the opposite party Board Under Sub clause 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 "a person is not categorized as a consumer who avails of such services for any commercial purpose." Explanation added to sub clause (d) further makes it clear that " commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment" Firstly complainant is not engaged in any trade or business of manufacturing commodities and generating profits by use of electricity for commercial purpose. Secondly he has clearly deposed in the affidavit that he is self employed person and is running the said Commission agent shop being proprietor and there is no other source of income. Therefore, complainant cannot be excluded from the ambit of "consumer" as defined in Section 2(i) (d) of the ACt ibid.<br /> 8. Regarding the legality and validity of impunged bill dated 23/1/2006 Ex.C2 for recovery of Rs.8881/- and also order of Dispute Settlement Committee Ex.R5 dated 7/8/07 for recovery of said amount shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances, no doubt, opposite party Board has taken up plea in the written statement and also supported by affidavit Ex.R10 of Raj Kumar officiating SDO that NRS connection of the complainant was checked by the then SDO Sub Division Uchha on 18/10/2005 vde checking report Ex.R1 dated 18/10/05 and he was found running 3.475 KW load illegally on the basis of which Rs.8881/- were charged in the impunged bill dated 23/1/2006 as per rules an regulations of the PSEB. He further deposed that on the application of complainant on deposit of 33% of the disputed amount, reference was made to DSC which decided the matter against the complainant exparte vide order dated 7/8/07 Ex.R5 as he failed to appear before the said Committee despite registered notice. Complainant on the other hand had questioned checking and also genuineness of the application for referring the matter to DSC and unilateral proceedings before alleged DSC in his absence. We have gone through the relevant documents. The checking report Ex.R1 does not show that same was conducted either in the presence of consumer or his representative a it does not bear signatures or receipt thereof. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that complainant moved any application under his signatures before DSC or registered notice sent by DSC to complainant to participate in the alleged proceedings. It, therefore, appears that all proceedings were conducted by the officials of the PSEB unilaterally and arbitrarily in violation of principle of natural justice and as such no legal sanctity can be attached to the impunged order Ex.R5. We, therefore, quash the sundry charges in the bill dated 26/11/2007 and one third amount of the disputed amount already deposited by the complainant in terms of the order dated 10/5/08 be refunded by the opposite party PSEB to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from date of deposit till realisation with further direction to pay Rs.3000/- as monetary compensation for mental agony and physical sufferings on account of deficiency in service besides Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation payable within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> <br /> Announced : (Gulshan Prashar) (Shashi Narang ) ( A.K. Sharma)<br /> 10-9-2008 Member Member President.<br />