Complainant Santokh Raj has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned notice bearing memo No.1968 dated 14.12.2015 and withdraw their illegal threat to recover the amount of Rs.5400/- from him under the threat of disconnection of electricity connection bearing Account No.GP-15/954 F. Opposite parties be further directed to pay compensation  and litigation expenses on account of mental and physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has got installed an electric connection bearing Account No.GP 15/954-F in his Atta Chakki for self employment and for earning his livelihood on 28.9.1998 and he has deposited the amount of Rs.2200/- as Security for the same. The opposite parties issued notice bearing memo No.1968 dated 14.12.2015 and demanded the alleged amount of Rs.5400/- from him as amount of receiving excess security consumption charges. Actually, the said memo is illegal, null and void, against the law and instructions and he is not liable to pay the same as he has already deposited the amount of security at the time of installation of the Atta Chakki and he is not liable to pay the amount of excess security consumption charges from him. He has requested to withdraw the notice bearing memo no.1968 dated 14.12.2015 and withdraw their illegal threat to recover the abovesaid amount from him but the opposite parties have refused to admit his claim. Hence this complaint.

3.          Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hand and the present complaint is not maintainable in the present Form. On merits, it was admitted that the opposite parties had issued notice no.1968 dated 14.12.2015 and demanded the amount of Rs.5400/- as Revise Security Charges. It was incorrect that the memo in question was illegal, null and void and not binding on the complainant as the complainant has already deposited the security amount at the time of installation of connection and the complainant was not liable to be paying the amount in question. Actually, the opposite parties have revised the security charges of the old connection as the security amount of the old connection was very less as per the current security charges. The opposite parties can revise the security charges of the complainant as mentioned in the supply code of the opposite parties. The opposite parties also served the notice to the complainant for providing reasonable opportunity to heard. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other document Ex.C2 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Khazan Singh S.D.O. PSPCLtd. Ex.OP1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 & Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

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 (under the C P Act’ 1986)prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant Santokh Raj has been a consumer of the opposite party # 1 Corporation (Service Provider) under the CP Act, by virtue of being holder of the Electricity Connection # GP 15/954-F to run his Atta Chakki for earning his livelihood through self-employment. Upon being aggrieved at the receipt of one alleged  notice memo no.1968 dated 14.12.2015 for Rs.5400/- he preferred the present complaint alleging that opposite party is allegedly demanding Rs.5400/- as security consumption charges which according to him is neither legal nor justified. The learned counsel for the complainant has also cited the judgment of the honorable Allahabad High Court in CMWP 38 of 2009 titled Tehri Girders Ltd., vs. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., overruling therein that the ‘security’ deposit cannot be equated to ‘charges’ and can neither be recovered as ‘arrears of land revenue’ nor any ‘Bank Guarantee’ can be demanded as security for its payment etc.

7.       However, the opposite party corporation (service providers) have duly explained that the ‘security’ deposit between the range of (proportionally equivalent to) 1½ to 2½ times the monthly consumption is mandatorily desired as per the Corporation Resolution # 15.1.1 and Rs.5400/- was desired to be deposited by the complainant being the difference in security deposit presently requisite at the enhanced monthly consumption charges. The Memo # 1968 of 14.12.2015 Ex.OP2 for Rs.5400/- has been duly examined and found correct and legally payable by the complainant. We find the explanation as made out by the opposite service providers as satisfactory and legally valid. The demand put forth upon the complainant for payment of these amounts by the opposite party corporation has been a matter of routine and they have been within their legal rights to demand and recover the legally accrued amounts as per the Sales & Distribution of Electricity Rules & Regulations etc. 

8.       In the light of the all above, we do not find any statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs.  

                                                                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                           President

ANNOUNCED:                                         (Jagdeep Kaur)

April, 29 2016.                                                   Member.

*MK*