Niranjan Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to correct the bill of the complainant and not to charge alleged amount of Rs.2516/- as sundry charges and allowances and reducing the surcharge amount and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and inconvenience besides Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that the complainant is subscriber of electricity connection No. TD-21/0268 F which is being run in the name of Piara Singh and the complainant purchased the house in which the said connection is installed from said Piara Singh vide sale deed dated 5/11/1997 alongwith the electric connection and meter. Since the day of purchase of the house the complainant using the connection and regularly paying the previous bills according to the consumption of electricity. On receipt of the bill dated 24/3/2007 he was astonished that an amount of Rs.2516/- have been wrongly added as sundry charges and an amount of Rs.288/- have been claimed as surcharge after the due date. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 and inquired about the alleged amount of Rs.2516/- but they did not give any satisfactory reply rather insisted to deposit the whole amount of the bill and also threatened to disconnect the connection in case the amount is not deposited. The complainant is a small farmer and unable to fulfill the unreasonable demand of the opposite parties and he is under mental tension and suffered much loss due to the rude behavior of the opposite party No. 3 without any fault on the part of the complainant. It is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 13-4-2007 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. B.B.Khurana Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant must have referred the dispute before the Dispute Settlement Committee constituted by the PSEB to settle the disputes between the PSEB and customers before coming to this Forum. So the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties as the connection is in the name of Piara Singh. The complainant is using the electricity for commercial purpose as he is running a Karyana shop. The complainant does not come to the Forum with clean hands as the connection of the complainant was checked by the Task Force on 1/8/2006 and spot report was prepared for which he was charged Rs.2516/-. The complainant is neither the son nor he has been declared to the be the exclusive owner of the said connection. So he is not the consumer of the opposite parties. On merits the opposite parties submitted that the connection No. TD-21/0268 E is in the name of some Piara Singh and the complainant has not produced any record that the connection has also been transferred to the vendee. The connection is in the name of Piara Singh and only he is the consumer of the opposite parties. It is correct that that Rs.2516/- as sundry charges and Rs.288/- as surcharge has been charged from the complainant, which are legal, lawful and recoverable from the complainant. No threat of the disconnection has been given rather disconnection is a mode of recovery as per rules and regulations of the supply of the PSEB. The complainant is running a Karyana shop and is earning financial profit, so he is not a consumer of the opposite parties. Hence 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, copy of sale deed Ex.C-2, electricity bills and receipts Ex.CA to Ex. CH and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Charanjit Singh Mann AEE City Sub Division Faridkot Ex.R-1, copy of checking report dated 11/8/2006 Ex.R-2, copy of half margin Ex.R-3, copy of ledger Ex.R-4 to Ex.R-9, affidavit of Kaka Singh Mann AEE City Sub Division Faridkot Ex.R-10 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 demand put forth by the opposite parties for the payment of Rs.2516/- vide bill No. 24124 dated 24/3/2007 as sundry charges and allowances alongwith surcharge of Rs.288/- being without any details is illegal and the complainant is not liable to pay the same. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant had been using the domestic electric connection as NRS connection by running a shop. The sundry charges are related to the difference of the tariff between DS and NRS connections. Complainant is liable to make payment of the surcharge on the outstanding amount. So the complaint be dismissed. <br /> 10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties is submitted that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties. He have not got transferred the electric connection from the name of Piara Singh into his name. <br /> 11. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had been using the electric connection since 5/11/1997 from the purchase of the house in question. Complainant has become consumer of the opposite parties by way of paying electricity bills and long user of the electric connection thereof. <br /> 12. From the perusal of the file it is made out that as per Ex.R-3 NRS tariff has been ordered by the opposite parties to the calculated and ultimately vide bill Ex.CA dated 24/3/2007 the opposite parties have demanded Rs.2516/- as sundry charges and allowances alongwith surcharge of Rs.288/-. <br /> 13. This amount is based on the checking report Ex.R-2 dated 11/8/2006 made by the competent authority of the opposite parties. They have found running of Karyana shop. The electric connection of the complainant is being used to supply electricity in the shop. Tariff has been ordered to be charged accordingly. This checking report has been signed by the complainant or his representative as per the signatures. Complainant has not specifically rebutted the checking report on the basis of the checking of the task force vide calculation Ex.R-3 the opposite parties have sent bill of Rs.2516/- to the complainant being difference of the tariffs in between the DS and NRS connection. <br /> 14. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances the opposite parties have made demand as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties. <br /> 15. Since the complainant had been using the electric connection he is in possession of the bills and receipts since 1997 when vide sale deed Ex.C-2 complainant Niranjan Singh has purchased the property in question from Piara Singh and others. Being long user he become the consumer of the opposite parties. <br /> 16. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to costs. 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: 11/9/2007<br />