Charanjit 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 sundry charges of Rs.3,697/- raised vide bill dated 24.6.2007 and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.1,500/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is having a NRS electric connection bearing account No. ED-79/0806 for running a workshop for his exclusive self employment of the complainant, as such he is the consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant is paying all the electricity consumption bills as and when received by the complainant and nothing on account of consumption charges is due against him. The complainant has received a bill issued on 24.6.2007 in which the opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs.3697/- as sundry without giving any detail which is quite illegal, unlawful and against the rules and instructions of the PSEB. On inquiry from the opposite party No. 2 it revealed that the amount of sundry has been charged on account of unauthorized load on the basis of checking dated 7.4.2007. No notice has been served upon the complainant before charging the amount as sundry which is mandatory as per provisions and instructions of the PSEB. The load in the said checking report has been wrongly calculated. The hand grinder the load of which has been added in the checking report is not fixed permanently with the load, rather it is used only on requirement i.e. too through the plugs the load of which has also been added in the checking report. The load connected is well within the permissible limit of sanctioned load and there is no unauthorized load at the premises of the complainant. The complainant when objected regarding calculation of the load the opposite party No. 2 has not given any opportunity of being heard to the complainant and charge the amount in an arbitrary manner. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 so may times to withdraw the illegal and unlawful charges of Rs. 3697/-, but the opposite party No. 2 did not agree with the complainant, rather has threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant in case the amount as charged is not deposited immediately which amounts to clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. The act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused a great mental tension and harassment to the complainant for which the complainant claims a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties, besides above the complainant also claims a sum of Rs.1,500/- as litigation expenses from the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 10.7.2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of the notice the opposite parties appeared through Sh. Rajneesh Garg Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objection that the complainant is running a workshop having NRS connection bearing A/c No. ED-79/0806 for gaining profit. So the complainant is not a consumer of PSEB under the Consumer Protection Act. So the complaint is not maintainable. On merits the opposite parties admitted that the NRS connection bearing A/c No. ED-79/0806 is running in the premises of the complainant for running a workshop but it is wrong that the connection is used for exclusive self employment of the complainant. The amount of Rs.3697/- have been charged in the bill of the complainant through sundry which are legal, lawful and as per instructions and rules of the PSEB. The amount has been charged after serving notice No. 1056 dated 10.4.2007 giving full details of the amount charged. The complainant did not make the payment so final notice No. 1255 dated 30.4.2007 was issued to the complainant but the complainant did not make the payment. The connection of the complainant was checked by Senior Xen Enforcement Bathinda II on 7.4.2007 and connected load of the complainant was found 8.401 KW against the sanctioned load of 7.16 KW thereby using 1.33 KW load unauthorizedly. Checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of the complainant and under his signatures. Complainant did not raise any objection against the checking report. Copy of checking report was served upon the complainant for making payment of the amount charged on account of unauthorized load. The load has been rightly calculated as is clear from the checking report. The load of hand grinder is to be included in the connected load irrespective of whether it is permanently attached with the load. The complainant never objected against the calculation of load. So there is no question of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation of Rs.20,000/- and also not entitled for litigation expenses of Rs.1500/- as he has filed this complaint on false and fictitious grounds. So the complaint be dismissed with heavy 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, bill dated 24.6.2007 Ex.C-2 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in their evidence affidavit of Er. Balwinder Singh Ex.R-1, copy of checking report Ex.R-2, copy of notice Ex.R-3, copy of another notice Ex.R-4 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 has submitted that the opposite parties put forth illegal demand and unlawful charges of Rs.3697/- as sundry charges in the bill issued on 24.6.2007. Complainant is not bound to pay the same. Complainant is entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.1500/-. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that demand put forth by the opposite parties is legal. It is bound to be paid by the complainant. Complainant has not contested the demand notice issued under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act. Complainant is using the electric connection for commercial purposes.<br /> 10. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that electric connection is being used for exclusive self employment of the complainant. Complainant is not bound to submit reply to the illegal notice of the opposite parties. Even otherwise complainant had been contesting this notice with the opposite parties but they were adamant to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant. So complainant immediately have to file this complaint. <br /> 11. The complainant have specifically pleaded that he is running a workshop for his exclusive self employment, so he is consumer of the opposite parties. This fact is supported by the evidence and documents on the file. There is no specific rebuttal to this effect. So simple denial of opposite parties in this regard is not helpful to them. So it is held that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties by using electric connection for his exclusive self employment to run a workshop. <br /> 12. Complainant has challenged bill Ex.C-2 dated 24.6.2007 issued by the opposite parties for making payment of Rs.3697/- as sundry charges. The opposite parties have placed reliance on checking report Ex.R-2 prepared by the opposite parties at the spot. It has been signed by the complainant. <br /> 13. There is no case of theft of energy as the meter disc was revolving properly by putting it on the load. The opposite parties have worked out 8.491 KW connected load instead of 7.16 KW sanctioned load. Out of the calculation of connected load the compressor drill machine which are run through the plugs/sockets also have been calculated to be 1.492 KW and 0.746 KW. Another electric appliances have been calculated as 0.323 KW and 0.535 KW. All these items are held to have been calculated to have been connected with the power plugs. It is not on the file as to how many power plugs are fitted in the electric connection. There is no calculations of load details as per demand notice or test report submitted by the complainant to the opposite parties. Complainant has not used any electric appliances from extra plug or temporarily from the load line. <br /> 14. In such like circumstances the complainant can be said to have not used excessive load in any manner. There is fractional difference of the connected load with calculated load. <br /> 15. As per commercial circular No. 34/2006 relied upon by the opposite parties there are powers of officers of Board to enter consumer premises for checking/inspection under Section 135 (2) of Electricity Act, 2003. Assessment of unauthorized use of electricity is upon the assessing officers under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 can impose compounding charges in case of theft of electricity under Section 152 of Electricity Act. <br /> 16. The case in hand is not related to theft of electricity so there was no necessity for compounding of charges. As per commercial circular No. 34/2006.2 Note: Unauthorized (iv) unauthorized extension in load is not covered under misuse of electricity. It is separately governed by provisions of load surcharge given in schedule of tariff circulated vide memo No. 30078/30103 dated 1.6.2006. Any dispute regarding levy of load surcharge shall be adjudicated by the existing Dispute Settlement Committees. Similarly disputes other then those related to misuse of electricity shall also be adjudicated by existing DSCs.<br /> 17. In such like circumstances complainant was not required to submit reply to the illegal notice Ex.R-3 as excess load has been calculated wrongly by the opposite parties. <br /> 18. In such like circumstances complaint No. 234 of 14.12.2006 decided on 10.10.2007 titled as 'Gurbax Singh Versus PSEB' by this Forum is not helpful to the opposite parties. This case is related to theft of energy by tampering with glass of the meter whereas in the present case there is no such theft of energy reported by the opposite parties. <br /> 19. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances it is held that demand put forth by the opposite parties for the payment of Rs.3697/- vide bill dated 24.6.2007 is illegal. Complainant being consumer had been facing deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties by wrong calculations of the excess load. So the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs.3697/- charged as sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 24.6.2007, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. If any, amount already deposited by the complainant with regard to the amount of Rs.3697/- charged in the bill dated 24.6.2007 as sundry charges and allowances, the same shall be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in the subsequent bills of the complainant. 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: 3.1.2008<br />