Complainant Lakhwinder Singh 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 quash Rs.10,781 illegally imposed by the opposite parties in bill dated 16.1.2015 and new bill be issued as per the consumed units. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that his connected electric load was 0.97 KW and he was paying the bills regularly to the opposite parties since its inception. His average monthly bill was Rs.750/- per month. Opposite parties added Rs.10,781/- in bill dated 16.1.2015 on account of sundry charges and allowances without any cause and rhyme. After receiving the bill dated 16.1.2015, he approached the opposite parties no.1 and 2 for explanation of the amount of Rs.10,781/- illegally imposed vide bill dated 16.1.2015 but no satisfactory reply was given by them and they refused to deduct Rs.10,781/- out of the total amount of Rs.11,198/-. He never committed any theft nor any checking was conducted at his premises. There are no dues against him and moreover as per the Sale Manual Rule 102.2 any arrears of supplementary assessment cannot be clubbed with the current bill and it has to be raised separately which the opposite parties have violated. Non explanation of illegal amount of Rs.10,781/- imposed in bill dated 16.1.2005 is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 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 by concealing the material facts; the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hand; the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer to the opposite party, hence he has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the opposite parties and the complaint of the complainant is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of the necessary parties. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant written in his complaint that his account number is G 22DA56/851F whereas the opposite parties no.1 and 2 deal with the series of G21 instead of G22. So, the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Lakhwinder Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Tirath Raj, S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.

7.       From the pleading and evidence on record we find that the complainant has alleged that he is holder of electric connection with sanctioned load 0.97 with the opposite parties and as such is consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 16.1.2015 with its sundry entry of Rs.10,781/- being without any cause and rhyme.

8.        On the other hand, opposite parties have contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer of the contesting opposite parties. His account number is G 22 DA 56/851F whereas opposite parties deal with the series of G 21 and not G22. So the complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties.

9.      From the entire above discussion, we also come to the conclusion that complainant is not a consumer of the contesting opposite parties and as such we did not find any deficiency in service on their part. So this complaint is dismissed being not maintainable against the contesting opposite parties, however the complainant shall be at liberty to file a fresh complaint against the actual erring opposite party if he is so advised. The contesting opposite parties are also directed to refund the amount deposited with them by the complainant during the pendency of this complaint if any within 30 days from the receipt of copy of orders failing which they will pay interest @ 9% from the expiry of 30 days till actually paid.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.             

                                                                           (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                    President

ANNOUNCED:                                                          (Jagdeep Kaur)

October,9 2015.                                                         Member                     

*MK*