Chand Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal and unlawful charges of Rs.2,772/- and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. The complainant in his complaint that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having a domestic electric connection of account No. SV44/0026 with the connected load of 4.98 KW in his name. The complainant is paying all the electricity consumption charges of the bills as and when received by the complainant and at present nothing on account of consumption charges is due against the complainant. The complainant has received a bill issued on 25/8/2006 in which the opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs.2772/- as sundry charges which is illegal, unlawful and against the instructions of the PSEB. No details of the sundry charges have been given in the bill as required under the provisions of law. No notice or supplementary bill as required under the instructions of the PSEB has been served upon the complainant before charging of the amount as sundry charges which is quite illegal and unlawful. The complainant after receipt of bill in question visited the office of opposite party No. 2 and requested them to withdraw the illegal and unlawful charges of Rs.2772/- charged as sundry charges and allow the complainant to deposit the current bill but they did not agree rather threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant in case the bill in question is not deposited which amounts to clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct o the opposite parties have caused a great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which he claims Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19-9-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. M.S.Brar Advocate and filed written reply in which the opposite parties admitted that Rs.2772/- has been charged in the bill issued on 25/8/2006. This amount was charged because the complainant was using the connection for running a model school. The audit party vide half margin memo No. 21 dated 30/6/2006 charged this amount in view of the commercial circular No. 15/2000 as the consumer was found using the connection for commercial purpose as such NRS tariff is applicable. The amount has been charged as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. The amount was explained to the complainant when he visited the office. The copy of sundry charges and allowances register alongwith extract of the half margin was also given to the complainant. The complainant never showed his willingness to deposit the current bill. Had the complainant been ready to deposit the current bill the opposite parties would not have any hesitation to accept the same. If the due amount was not deposited within the stipulated period the Board employees are duty bound to work according to instructions of the Board and as per instructions of the Board the connection is liable to be disconnected due to defaulting amount so there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The amount of Rs.12473/- was also charged as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. The complainant is not entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/- as the complaint has been filed on false and fictitious grounds. So the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of bill dated 25/8/2006 Ex.C-2, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Kulwant Singh AAE Bargari Sub Divn. PSEB Bargari Ex.R-1, copy of register Ex.R-2, copy of checking report dated 24/12/2005 Ex.R-3, copy of notice memo No. 29 dated 24/12/2005 Ex.R-4, affidavit of Shiv Om Nath Meter Reader City Sub Divn. Kotkapura Ex.R-5, attested copy of meter reading record Ex.R-6, attested copy of report of meter reader Ex.R-7, attested copies of ledger Ex.R-8 to Ex.R-11, affidavit of Harbans Lal Meter Reader Bargari Sub Divn. PSEB Bargari Ex.R-12 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties have illegally and unlawfully sent a bill of Rs.2772/- as sundry charges on 25/8/2006. There is no explanation of the same. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the amount in question was detected to be payable as the complainant was running a model school while checking the connection. Audit party vide half margin No. 21 dated 30.6.2006 charged this amount in view of the commercial circular No. 15/2000. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the report with regard to use of the electric connection for commercial purpose by the complainant was made by the Meter Reader. <br /> 11. From the perusal of the ledger entries Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-11 it is made out that the complainant was using electric connection for commercial purpose. There is a specific note on entry Ex.R-7 that model school is being run by the complainant. In such like circumstances it is held that the opposite parties have established on the file that complainant was using electric connection for commercial purpose so there is no deficiency of service to be provided by the opposite parties to the complainant as per Ashutosh Burathoki Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 1 (1999) Consumer Protection Judgments-11, so the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 19/7/2007<br /> <br />