Prem Kumar 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.6523/- in the bill issued on 13/2/2007 and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and inconvenience and also to pay Rs.2,000/- on account of litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties having a domestic electric connection bearing account No. DB-93/0576 with a sanctioned load of 2.38 KWs. The complainant is paying all the electricity consumption charges as and when the bill is received by the complainant and nothing on account of consumption charges is pending against the complainant. The complainant has received a bill issued on 13/2/2007 in which the opposite parties have charged an amount of Rs.6523/- as sundry charges without giving any detail, which is quite illegal, unlawful and against the rules and instructions of the PSEB. After receipt of the bill the complainant approached the office of the opposite party No. 2 and met with RA and enquired about the detail of the sundry charges and on inquiry the RA told that the amount has been charged on account of commercial activities being taken place at the residence of the complainant which is quite wrong act. The complainant never used the electric connection for running any shop or for any other commercial activity, rather the same is being used purely for domestic purposes. Moreover there is no provision of any shop in the house of the complainant. On 19/2/2007 the complainant has moved an application to the opposite party No. 2 thereby requesting to inspect the site and also for correction of the bill, but uptill today the connection of the complainant was never checked by any authority of PSEB. He again met with the opposite party No. 2 and requested them to withdraw the illegal sundry charges as there is no commercial activity at the premises of the complainant but the opposite party No. 2 refused to check the site and to withdraw the amount, rather threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant in the event the amount of sundry is not deposited with the current consumption bill 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.10,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties and the complainant also claims a sum of Rs.2,000/- 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 23-2-2007 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 in which they submitted that the connection of the complainant was given for domestic purposes. The connection of the complainant was checked on 25/10/2005 by the Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement), PSEB, Bathinda and he found that the complainant using the connection for non-residential purposes. While checking the Senior Xen found that the complainant was running a cloth shop in his house and as such as per rules and regulations of the Board the NRS tariff was applicable in the case of the complainant. It is correct that the amount of Rs.6523/- was charged through bill dated 13/2/2007 as sundry charges. The connection of the complainant was checked in the presence of the complainant and the load of the complainant was found to be 4.273 KW. It is also mentioned in the checking report that the meter of the complainant may be installed in meter cup board outside the house of the complainant. Copy of checking report was given to the complainant and he signed the checking report at the time of the checking and he also signed in token of the receipt of the copy of the checking report. While checking the account of the complainant the audit party audited his account and issued a direction for charging NRS tariff vide half margin No. 19 in the month of December 2006. The amount of Rs.6523/- was charged due to difference of DS and NRS tariff for the period 11/2004 to 11/2006. The amount has been charged as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. It is correct that the complainant visited the office and he met the RA of the Board. A full detail of the amount charged was also explained to him. The reason for charging the amount was also explained to him. The complainant demanded the detail of said two tariffs and full detail of the amount was given to the complainant to deposit the amount but later on he failed to do so but filed this false complaint. The complainant did not raise any objection at the time of checking. When the complainant informed the opposite parties that now he is using the connection for domestic purposes the DS tariff is being charged from the complainant. The complainant has filed this complaint on false and fictitious grounds, as such he is not entitled to any compensation of Rs.10,000/- or litigation expenses to the extent of Rs.2,000/-. Hence 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 complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, affidavit of Kuldip Singh Ex.C-2, affidavit of Ruldu Singh Ex.C-3, copy of application dated 19/2/2007 Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 13/2/2007 Ex.C-5, photograph Ex.C-6, affidavit of Jagdish Singh Ex.C-7, photographs Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10, negatives of these photographs Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-13 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of V.K.Bansal AEE City Sub Division PSEB Kotkapura Ex.R-1, attested copy of checking report dated 25/10/2005 Ex.R-2, attested copy of half margin Ex.R-3, affidavit of Sh. Karnail Singh Senior Executive Engineer Enforcement-1 Bathinda Ex.R-4, checking report dated 25/10/2005 Ex.R-5, affidavit of Vageesh Chander R.A. City Sub Division PSEB Kotkapura Ex.R-6 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 made illegal demand of Rs.6523/- in bill dated 13/2/2007. As the complainant was not using his residential house as a shop to sale cloth material. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the premises of the complainant was checked by the Senior Executive Engineer Enforcement PSEB Bathinda on 25/10/2005. He found complainant running a shop in his house. So as per regulations of the board the NRS tariff was applicable in case of the complainant. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that no details of the sundry charges and allowance have been mentioned in bill Ex.C-5 by the opposite parties. Even opposite parties on moving application Ex.C-4 in February 2007 with regard to inspection of site have not taken any account. The complainant has submitted in this application that electric connection was not being used by him for commercial purposes. He is using the premises only for his residential purposes. So the amount of Rs.6523/- charged by the opposite parties were required to be withdrawn. <br /> 11. From the perusal of the file it is made out that Senior Executive Engineer Karnail Singh PSEB Enforcement Bathinda has submitted affidavit Ex.R-4, as per his affidavit the connection of the complainant was checked by him on 25/10/2005 in presence of Prem Kumar complainant. Prem Kumar signed the checking report copy of which was given to the complainant at spot. The deponent Karnail Singh found load of 4.273 KWs connected to the connection. The complainant was found running a cloth shop in his house. <br /> 12. The checking report Ex.R-5 signed by Prem Kumar makes out that he received copy of the same from the opposite parties. It is reported in this checking sheet that complainant was running a cloth shop in his house. As per regulations of the PSEB the appropriate tariff should be charged. The statement of Karnail Singh is supported by the affidavit of Vagish Chander Ex.R-6 and affidavit of V.K.Bansal AEE Ex.R-1.<br /> 13. The photographs Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10 relied upon by the complainant to the effect that he was having residential house is of no avail to the complainant as a cloth shop can be run inside of the house without installation of a shutter to look like a shop. <br /> 14. The application Ex.C-4 was filed by the complainant only on 19/2/2007 immediately thereafter the complainant filed this complaint on 22/2/2007. So the opposite parties had no occasion to inspect the spot even spot has already been inspected by the opposite parties. So this application is on no avail to the complainant. <br /> 15. There is no any animosity of any kind of the opposite parties with the complainant. It is not on the file as to why false checking report has been prepared by the opposite parties. So affidavit Ex.C-1 of Prem Kumar supporting his complaint is of no avail to the complainant. Similarly affidavit Ex.C-2 of Kuldip Singh dated 11/5/2007 is of no avail to the complainant as it is belated evidence to the evidence of the opposite parties from the checking report dated 25/10/2005. <br /> 16. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances 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: 14/8/2007<br /> <br />