Complainant Ramesh Kumar through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter, called the Act) has prayed for issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to restrain them not to recover the huge and illegal recovery of Rs.14,439/- till the decision of the case. Opposite party be further directed to give opportunity to pursue the complaint case no.123 which was filed on 5.3.2015, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that the previous complaint filed by him under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act vide complaint no.123 of 2015 on 19.3.2015 in person. He has domestic electric connection bearing account No.g2/cf 581295 in the name of Prem Lal son of Karm Chand Gali Gandha Singh Dhariwal who has since been expired but the consumer was using the connection for the last 12 year back. The opposite party restored the connection by order of Ld.Lok Adalat after depositing the amount of Rs.3000/-. The meter was changed from the house of the abovesaid consumer. The meter was affixed on 16.12.2012. At that time the figure of meter reading was 2 unit but the next month the meter reading was 3944 unit. The opposite party issued bill of 3942 units which is totally wrong and without any base. He deposited Rs.14,000/- vide order of ld.court. The consumer filed another new complaint no.123 of 2015 after rectifying the technical fault for the meter reading 6093 unit for Rs.19,330/- in this regard the consumer court issued stay order on 23.3.2014. The opposite party issued bill on 5.3.2015 for the amount of Rs.29,520/- which is illegal and unjustified. The opposite party was taken the balance of Rs.22,572/- instead of Rs.20,254/- which was also disputed and the ld.court issued stay order for this impugned amount. The S.D.O. PSPCL has failed to explain the figure of Rs.29,520/- which was created by opposite party by miss calculating the figure of 3942 unit when our actual average consumption about 200 to 300 unit per bill.  Consumer deposited the current bill of Rs.1150/- vide receipt no.128 dated 30.3.3015. The opposite party demanded Rs.6948/- without giving any details. A notice dated 19.2.2015 was also issued. The Ld.Court disposed of the case on 10.11.2014 by giving direction to the opposite party. He has further pleaded that he filed another application U/s 27 for enforcement of the order dated 10.11.2014 and vide order dated 9.3.2015 of the Ld.Court the connection was restored on 10.3.2015 after that the consumer paid bill of electricity regularly. The opposite party inspected load and submitted the report to the XEN Dhariwal and the XEN charged the amount of Rs.8042/- and load was extended after that the opposite party again moved an application before Ld.Court and Ld.Court allowed the application and appointed the local commissioner and he submitted his report of 7.566 before Ld.Court. The consumer filed an objection through its counsel. The Corporation compromised with him in case No.32 of 2015 and the complaint was withdrawn on 9.6.2015 and they refunded Rs.15,993/- and in this way the balance was reduced from 29,520/- to 14,439/-. The case no.123 of 2015 was pending and the same was fixed for consideration on 22.1.2016. He did not appear on due date on sudden death of his close and nearest relative and thereafter he was suffering from fever so, his complaint was dismissed in default by Ld.Court on 22.2.2016. The Corporation issued bill in 8.3.2016 in which the disputed amount of Rs.14439/- was entered but the disputed amount was already stayed in the case of 123 dated 16.3.2015 which is legal unjustified and beyond any concept of law the consumer was paid the bill regularly. He is senior citizen of 69 years old and he is also sugar and heart patient. Hence this complaint.

3.         Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; complaint under the same cause of action between the same parties has been decided by the Ld.Forum, hence the principal of res-judicate is applicable and the complainant is habitual to file false and frivolous complaint against the parties hence he is liable for special cost under the provisions. On merits, it was submitted that the matter in question is already decided by the Ld.Forum vide order dated 12.6.2015. While denying and controverting other allegations, the opposite party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.       Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.

5.      Sh.Gurvinder Singh S.D.O. tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith other document Ex.OP-2 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 (in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant has been aggrieved since long and had even earlier filed ‘2’ nos of consumer complaints followed by ‘one’ execution but somehow failed to get the relief of his choice and that prompted the present complaint. We further find that the present complainant’s last complaint could not be decided on merits as the same was dismissed in default for want of prosecution on account of some of his family compulsions. However, the OP Corporation taking benefit of the ‘dismissal’ of that complaint had been allegedly tormenting the complainant who preferred refuge under the instant complaint. The prime grievance has been the local commissioner’s report allegedly drafted in the complainant’s absence and in an unusual huff-n-hurry while the other pertained to ‘revival’ of one ‘restrained’ half-paid impugned consumption bill. The evidentiary documents as produced by the complainant satisfactorily and sufficiently prove the complaint-raised allegations.Upon approach, the OP service providers did not rectify the impugned excessive amount of the Bills but instead threatened to recover the same through coercive means such as disconnection of supply etc and carrying over the disputed amount to the next Bills and that prompted the present complaint.

7.       However, the opposite party corporation (service providers) have refuted all the allegations vide its written statement and has further deposed vide its affidavit Ex.OP1 of the excessive connected load and also the impugned connection not being in the name of the complainant. The OP Corporation did also file an application on 19.08.2016 seeking directions to the complainant to comply with its notices memo nos. 644 & 645 both dated 22.04.2016 along with the permission to disconnect the complainant’s connection. The complainant has rebutted the said application alleging its non-receipt/non-dispatch and its being a fabricated document managed during the pendency of the instant complaint. We find truth in the complainant’s rebuttal since the OP’s written statement filed on 19.05.2016 finds no mention of these memos 644 & 645 said to have been issued on 22.04.2016 and thus we dismiss the instant application to proceed further with present adjudicatory. We also find that the past dismissal was not founded on merits but upon non-prosecution and thus the OP Corporation’s insistence upon ‘recovery’ of disputed sums and ‘disconnection’ etc have been ill-founded and are thus hereby set-aside. Even, the calculations of summations of the two demands have not been produced for unexplained reasons and thus the OP Corporation has failed to satisfactorily explain the genuineness of the impugned Bill. Somehow, we do not find the explanation as made out by the opposite party service providers as satisfactory and legally valid.

8.       Moreover, the demand as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the impugned Bill 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 etc. 

9.       In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by setting aside the demands as raised out vide memo nos. 644 and 645 and instead raise simple actual consumption charges only for ‘unpaid’ period with full details within 15 days of the receipt of copy of the present orders and the complainant shall pay the same within 15 days of its receipt. The learned counsel for the opposite party has repeated as has been deposed vide its affidavit (Ex.OP1) that the OP Corporation are inclined to issue the fresh electric connection in the complainant’s name to straighten out the matter in issue and thus we direct the complainant to formally apply for a fresh connection within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the present orders with directions to the opposite party corporation to expeditiously sanction/release the so-applied electricity connection in accordance with the applicable sales and supply rules/ regulations  and to only then withdraw/disconnect the continuing electricity connection. In the meantime, the complainant shall however be liable to pay only the simple accrued charges for his actual consumption on regular basis. 

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

     (Naveen Puri)

                                                                         President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 09,2016.                                         Member.

*MK*