Complainant Mulakh 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 exclude the amount of Rs.11,649/- included in excess in his bill and withdraw their illegal threat to recover this amount under the threat of disconnection of electricity supply to  his Atta Chakki. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for  harassment, 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.G62GP700004 W in his Atta Chakki for self employment and for earning his livelihood.  He is continuously consuming the electricity and has been making payment of the electricity charges to the opposite parties without any default. On 16.11.2015, opposite parties issued bill  for Rs.19,260/- included Rs.3365/- as Power Factor Surcharge/Allowances and Rs.6202/- as Sundry Charges in his bill and the opposite parties issued excess bill as he has consumed 1301 units and thus he has used the electricity amounting to Rs.7611/- and remaining amount of Rs.11,649/- is excess bill. He has further pleaded that when he received the bill dated 16.11.2015 he approached the opposite parties and requested them to explain regarding the amount of Rs.11,649/- included  in excess in the bill and also explain regarding the amount of Sundry charges and allowances but they refused to explain the same and threatened to recover this amount under the threat of disconnection of electricity connection to his Chakki. Due to the illegal act of the opposite parties he has suffered huge monetary loss and suffered mental and physical agony from the hands of the opposite parties. So, there is clear cut 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; 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 submitted that the bill dated 16.11.2015 is very much genuine as the opposite party has demanded the amount of Rs.6202/- as difference of security from the complainant. Opposite party issued memo no.1161 dated 5.8.2015 to the complainant in this regard, but when the complainant did not comply with the above notice hence the opposite party added the amount of Rs.6202/- under the heading of sundry charges in the bill. The security of the complainant was revised as per the resolution no.15.1.1 of the opposite party. The main reason behind the revision of security of the complainant that at the time of installation, the consumption of the complainant was low as per the present consumption and balance amount of Rs.3365/- was demanded by the opposite party vide bill dated 16.11.2015 due to power factor surcharge recorded as .63 instead of .90. The surcharge was leveled as per tariff order registration no.S1117.2.1 “The monthly average power factor falls below .90, the consumer shall pay on the bill amount surcharge of 1% for each 0.01 decreesal in the monthly average power factor below 0.90 the surcharge will be 2% for each, 0.01 decrease monthly power factor 0.80”. 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 Inderjit Singh Cheema 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 Mulkh 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 # G62GP700004W to run his Atta Chakki for earning his livelihood through self-employment. Upon being aggrieved at the receipt of one allegedly excessive Bill dated 16.11.2015 for Rs.19,260/- he preferred the present complaint alleging that he was liable to pay charges only for 1301 consumed units of electricity and neither for the additional security of Rs.6,202/- nor for the power factor surcharge of Rs.3,365/-. 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. PaschimanchalVidyutVitran 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.6,202/- was desired to be deposited by the complainant being the difference in security deposit presently requisite at the enhanced monthly consumption charges. The Memo # 1161 of 05.08.2015 Ex.OP2 for Rs.6,202/- has been duly examined and found correct and legally payable by the complainant. Further, the Power Factor Surcharge for a lower recording of 0.63 instead of the requisite 0.90 has been charged under the Tariff Order # S1117.2.1 as duly explained in the Ex.OP3. 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, 22 2016.                                           Member.

*MK*