Gurdarshan Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to restore the connection and for installation of electric meter at the house of the complainant and to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience with costs of the complaint. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he is consumer of the opposite parties having a domestic connection bearing account No. KL-53/0784. The complainant has been using the electric connection to some extent only. The opposite party No. 2 sometime ago issued a bill dated 13/2/2005 for Rs.11,966/- payable up to 25/2/2005 claiming there in a sum of Rs.3863/- on account of arrears wrongly. The complainant never consumed such huge units. So the payment of the said bill was not made by the complainant and requesting the opposite parties to correct the bill as there was very less consumption of electricity and that meter might be running in disorder and it be checked. The opposite parties has been putting off the complainant with one or the other excuse that the meter of the complainant will be checked and bill will be corrected soon but all in vain. The connection of the complainant has been disconnected by the opposite party No. 2 due to non payment of the bill in question. The meter of the complainant was removed in his absence. He has never made any theft and no official of the opposite parties visited and caught the complainant committing theft nor any checking was ever made at all. The demand of Rs.12729/- made by the opposite parties is illegal and void. It has caused unnecessary mental tension, pain, agony and harassment to the complainant so he is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/-. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 6-2-2007 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 taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not arrayed AEE Suburban Sub Division, Kotkapura under whose jurisdiction the connection was running but has willfully impleaded SDO City Sub Division Kotkapura as opposite party No. 2 who has nothing to do with the present complaint. The amount in dispute mentioned in the complaint relates only to current energy bills of the complainant which he has not paid regularly and consequently his connection was permanently disconnected in the month of 4/2005. Prior to filling of this complaint complainant has never come forward to get his connection reconnected by making outstanding payment of the bill nor has ever disputed the amount billed. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits the opposite parties submitted that the bill is prepared on the basis of actual consumption of the energy meter installed in the house of the complainant. He willfully and intentionally did not made payment of the bill payable upto 25/2/2005. Moreover the complainant previously also used to default in making payment of the bills with the result Rs.3863/- were due up to the bill amount for the month 12/2004 which was added in the bill 2/2005. The complainant did not make payment of this bill nor he complained about the bill being incorrectly prepared or challenged the working of the meter by depositing prescribed fee. The complainant was habitual defaulter and did not make payment from 4/2004 to 6/2005 except payment of Rs.1240/- made on 23/6/2004. The meter was removed in the presence of the complainant when he refused to make payment of the bill amount. There is no question of any theft or visit of any official of the opposite parties for checking. There is no question of causing any mental tension, agony and harassment. 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, copy of bill dated 12/12/2004 Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 13/2/2005 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 Sadhu Singh AEE Sub Urban Sub Division Kotkapura Ex.R-1, details of bills Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-3, copies of ledger Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-11 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 complainant is not liable to make payment of the amount mentioned in the bill dated 13/2/2005 to the tune of Rs.12729/-. Complainant is entitled to the restoration of the electric connection disconnected illegally by the opposite parties. Complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/-. The meter of the complainant was not recording correct reading rather its figures jumped to give more reading. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the bill has been issued by the opposite parties against the actual reading given by the electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant. There is no reported defect in the meter. Complainant is habitual defaulter of the payments of the amount in question. So the arrears are being added in the next coming bills. There is exaggeration of the amount claimed by the opposite parties from the complainant. <br /> 10. From perusal of the file it is made out that there is no complaint of the complainant to the opposite parties with regard to fast running of the meter. The complainant has not challenged working of the meter so this contention of the complainant is of no avail to the complainant in any manner. <br /> 11. The statement of account of the actual reading Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-11 shows that complainant had been making default in the payment of the amount in respect of the bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. So the disputed amount of Rs.12729/- is related to actual consumption of electricity in the meter installed by the opposite parties in the premises of the complainant including arrears of non payment of the previous bills. Ultimately when payment was not made by the complainant so the opposite parties had to disconnect the electric connection in the month of April 2005 as per reading details Ex.R-3. The bill details Ex.R-2 also shows that complainant has not paid any amount except amount of Rs.1240/- on 23/6/2004. <br /> 12. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complaint filed by the complainant 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: 21/8/2007<br />