( SMT.SHASHI NARANG MEMBER) <br /> Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is living in the house which was purchased by him from Karam Singh son of Partap Singh alongwith electric connection bearing electric meter No. 1067709 and he has been paying the bills of electricity as per demand raised by the opposite parties regularly. . It is only residential house and connected load is 2.60 KW It is further alleged that complainant was surprised to receive bill dated 7/2/2009 for an amount of Rs.16150/- in which Rs.15840/- were shown under sundry charges. He approached office of opposite party who threatened him to disconnect his electric connection. He under fear of disconnection, paid Rs.5300/- as part payment of the disputed bill. . That bill under question is wrong, illegal, void and arbitrary being an act of negligence on the part of opposite party against which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite party who appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which certain preliminary objections have been raised that complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties and has no locus standi to file the present complaint. That no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint. On merits it is pleaded that said electric connection is in the name of Karam Singh son of Partap Singh and the consumer is using the electricity and paying the amount of electricity bills.. It is incorrect that bill dated 7/2/2009 was sent to the complainant rather the said bill was in the name of Karam Singh son of Partap Singh consumer of the opposite parties in which Rs.15840/- were shown under sundry charges. It is further pleaded that on 29/11/2008 Er.Darshan Singh SDO, Sub Division Tibba checked the connection of the consumer and found that consumer was committing theft of electricity by connecting a wire with the joint of supply line by <br /> bye-passing the electric meter.. The checking officer took into possession black colour wire in length of six meters by which the consumer was committing theft of energy.. The checking was conducted in the presence of consumer and copy of checking report was delivered to him at the spot who received the same but did not sign the checking report.. On the basis of checking report . Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 3. In support of his version complainant has produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.C1 to C11.<br /> 4. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R9.<br /> 5. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant has purchased about thirty years back orally through oral transaction is now of the age of 90 years and is bed ridden and is having electric connection bearing electric meter No. 1067709. Counsel for the complainant has further argued that house was taken in possession by the complainant w.e.f. 18/3/2009. However, the complainant has been residing in the said house prior to the same and has been paying electricity bills regularly. Complainant has not installed heavy electric appliance in his house and his connected load is 2.60 KW for residential use. It is furthr argued that complainant received bill dated 7/2/2009 for the amount of Rs.16150/- in which Rs.15840/- were shown under the head sundry charges. Since the son of the complainant is student of 10+2 and his examination were approaching, therefore, complainant being afraid of that study of his son may not suffer had paid Rs.5300/- on 20/3/2009 as part payment of the disputed bill to the opposite party NO.3 . The bill under question is illegal, wrong and arbitrary being an act of negligence on the part of opposite parties.<br /> On the other hand opposite parties' counsel argued that complainant is not consumer of opposite parties and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The electric meter No. 1067709 is in the name of Karam singh son of Partap Singh resident of Village Miani Bola and said consumer is using the electricity of abovesaid connection and has been paying the electricity bills. The bill dated 7/2/2009 was sent to Karam Singh who is consumer of the opposite parties in which Rs.15840/- on account of compensation of theft of energy committed by Karam Singh were charged under the column of sundry charges. It has been further argued that on 29/11/2008 Er.Darshan Singh SDO, Sub Division Tibba checked the connection of the consumer Karam Singh who recorded his observations on checking report dated 29/11/2008 and found that consumer was committing theft of electricity and necessary observatons were recorded on the checking report No.15/1023 dated 29/11/2008 and checking was conducted in the presence of consumer, copy of checking report was delivered to consumer at the spot who after receiving the same did not sign the checking report. Hnce there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties and as per the record, it is observed that complainant has taken possession of the house from Karam Singh son of Partap Singh on 18/3/2009 whereas the checking party headed by Er.Darshan Singh SDO of the opposite parties checked the connection of consumer Karam Singh on 29/11/2008 and completed usual formalities before taking possession of the house by the complainant and complainant has not produced any evidence to show about the transfer of electric connection in his name and till today the electric onnection is running in the name of Karam Singh son of Partap Singh Complainant is, therefore, not consumer of the opposite parties. Even on merits in order to prove their case opposite parties have produced Ex.R2 is checking report dated 29/11/2008 of Er.Darshan Singh SDO supported by his affidavit Ex.R5 and affidavit of Er.Raj Kumar officiating SDO Ex.R1 indicating that electric connection of Karam Singh son of Partap Singh was checked and consumer was found committing theft of electricity by connecting wire with the joint of supply line by bye-passing the meter and checking was conducted in the presence of consumer, copy of checking report was delivered to him at the spot who received the same but did not sign the checking report. Ex.R3 is the copy of memo dated 1/12/2008 of the opposite parties raising demand of Rs.15840/- to Karam Singh son of Partap Singh under Section 135 of E.A. 2003 Regulation No.37 of E.C. 2007. Ex.R4 is the copy of request made by the complainant Sajjan Singh to SDO of the opposite parties to deposit the disputed bill in three installments who deposited amount of Rs.5300/- with the opposite party No.3 vide receipt No.127C dated 20/2/2009 on account of theft of energy. Ex.R6 is the copy of dispatch register indicating memo NO.2081 dated 1/12/2008 stands dispatched in the name of Karam Singh son of Partap Singh resident of village Miani Bola. There is nothing on the record to show that opposite parties were having any illwill or enmity with Karam Singh consumer to fabricate false case of theft of electricity against him.<br /> So in view of the above, complaint has no merit and same deserves dismissal. So the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> Let certified copies of order be supplied to the parties and file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh<br /> 2.6.2009 Member Member President.<br />