Prithvi Raj complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that his complaint may kindly be accepted with costs and necessary directions may be issued to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.40,370/- raised vide impugned bill dated 07.12.2016. Complainant has further prayed that opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation along with litigation expenses to him amounting to Rs.50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of opposite parties, in the interest of justice.  

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a law abiding and peace loving citizen and commands considerable respect in the locality and is residing in the house located in the society mentioned above on rent basis which is owned by one Kuldeep Singh who has expired and there is only one legal heir who is son of Kuldeep Singh. It was pleaded that said Kuldeep Singh rented out the said house to the complainant and he is looking after and maintaining the said house as son of Kuldeep Singh is permanently settled at Jalandhar. It was further pleaded that complainant is using the electric connection bearing A/c No.3000187314 which is installed in the said house and connected load of the said electric connection is 1.850 K.W. and he is regularly paying the electricity charges to the opposite parties and hiring the service of the opposite parties and as such he is consumer of the opposite parties. It was also pleaded that on 07.12.2016 opposite parties had issued bill amounting to Rs.40,370/- which was illegal, null & void and against the rules and regulations of the PSPCL and is not binding upon the rights of the opposite parties. It was also pleaded that earlier complainant was receiving bills in which ‘D’ Code was shown and an application was moved by the complainant to the concerned authority of the opposite parties who had at their own removed the electric meter of the complainant and installed new one but complainant was not called at the time of removal of said meter nor he was called in the M.E.Lab. with regard to the checking of the alleged electric meter. It was next pleaded that on the basis of said impugned bill opposite parties were threatening to the complainant to disconnect the electricity supply to the said electric meter illegally and forcibly and this act of the opposite parties is wrong and illegal. It was pleaded that complainant number of times approached the opposite party no.3 with the request to admit his claim and to withdraw their illegal threats but opposite parties always procrastinating the matter pending with one pretext or the other, hence this complaint. 

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complainant is not the consumer of the opposite parties as connection in dispute stands in the name of Kuldeep Singh. Complaint filed by the complainant is vexatious one and deserves to be dismissed with special cost. Complainant has not been charged anything else than consumption charges and as such present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was stated that electricity connection bearing A/c No.3000187314 stands in the name of Kuldeep Singh and not in the name of complainant and no application for transfer of name till date has been moved by the complainant as required as per the rules and regulations of PSPCL. It was further stated that bill dated 07.12.2016 for Rs.40,370/- issued to the complainant was based on actual consumption charges and the current consumption charges in the said bill were Rs.35,286/- on account of consumption of 5297 units of electricity and a sum of Rs.5084/- had been added in this bill on account of arrears of electricity and complainant was made part payments of his monthly electricity bills. It was also stated that meter of the complainant was defective and the same was changed vide MCO No.29680 dated 23.05.2016 which was effected on 08.10.2016 in the presence of representative of the complainant who signed on the said MCO. Meter of the complainant was duly packed and sealed in the cardboard box and obtaining the signatures of the representative of the complainant and after it consent of the complainant was also obtained regarding the checking of the meter in the M.E. Lab in his absence. It was next stated that replaced meter was sent to M.E. Lab. vide store challan No.59 dated 13.10.2016 which was checked in the M.E. Lab. by Addl. S.E. Enforcement, Batala, S.D.O. M.E. Lab. Gurdaspur and S.D.O. PSPCL City Gurdaspur who were observed that meter was burnt and the final reading was 19492 and last reading of said meter was 14423 and as such complainant was liable to pay consumption of Rs.35,286/- on account of consumption of 5069 units (19492-14423) of electricity. Complainant was also liable to pay the arrears of electricity Rs.5084/- and as such a sum of Rs.40,370/- (35286+5084) was worked out which complainant was liable to pay with the opposite parties. It was stated that opposite parties have every right to recover the consumption of charges of Rs.40,370/- from the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.     

4.       Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amardeep Singh Nagra SDO Ex.OP-1 along with documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

6.       We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant has claimed to have been a long time consumer of the opposite party service providers/corporation being the lawful-tenant of the A/c Holder Land Lord Kuldeep Singh who has since expired and even his Son has left Gurdaspur to get settled in Jalandhar. The OP Corporation has objected to the complainant’s statutory-consumer status since the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence of his being tenant beneficiary etc of the Electric 1.850 KW Connection A/c # 3000187314 and as such the present compliant is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

7.       However, we proceed ahead to examine the complaint on its issues of merit. We find that the complainant has alleged to have received the impugned Bill dated 07.12.2016 for Rs.40,370/- with ‘nil’ prior outstanding pendency. Here, also the complainant has failed to produce any ‘evidence’ of having paid the previously drawn Bills (Ex.C6 and Ex.C7) dated 04.10.2016 & 05.08 2016, respectively. Further, the complainant has admitted ‘defective’ status of the Meter with his request for Lab Test etc where the Meter was found ‘burnt’ with its ‘consumption’ run reading liable for billing & subsequent payment. The OP Corpn has produced its affidavit Ex.OP1 with supporting documents as: Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 to successfully prove its defense pleadings. The opposite party corporation (service providers) have refuted all the allegations vide its written statement and has further deposed (vide affidavit Ex.OP1) of the consumer’s liability to pay the consumption Bills regularly whereas the present complainant has not paid the consumption Bills for quite some time except the amounts directed to be deposited by the forum. We do also somewhat find the instant explanation as made out by the opposite party service providers/corporation to be quite satisfactory and legally valid. Somehow, we find that the demands as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the consumption charges by the opposite party corporation has not been a matter of routine and also not in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per the Sales & Distribution of Electricity Rules & Regulations and thus we direct the OP Corporation to re-draw the impugned Bill, in its elaborate and transparent version, as requisite.

8        In the light of the all above, we find no actionable merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                            (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                               President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

DEC. 20, 2017.                                                                       Member               

*YP*