Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(10/10/2013)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against MSEB for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant is a resident of Lohegaon, Pune-47. She is domestic consumer of the opponent. According to her, she never defaulted for making payment of bills. On 20/1/2009, she was away from her native place and one person came to her house, her son Harsh was present. At that time opponent took search in the house of the complainant. They did not find anything. But they forced to sign her son on certain documents. They had issued hand written bill of Rs. 89,180/- on 27/01/2009. The complainant approached to Dy. Executive Engineer, Shri. Bhagwat Halnor and asked copies of photographs and panchnama, but the same were not supplied. Thereafter on 9/2/2009 hand written bill of Rs. 43,300/- and two challans for Rs. 700/- were issued to the complainant. The complainant had deposited the said amount on 10/2/2009. Again she had received another challan for Rs. 36,000/- and she was asked to pay the said bill for restoration of the electricity connection. She had no money. Then she was asked to bring the stamp of Rs. 50/-. The opponent wrote certain text on the said stamp and asked her husband to sign the same. Thereafter the electricity connection was restored. It is the case of the complainant that the opponent has wrongly recovered an amount of Rs. 43,300/- and Rs. 1400/- on 10/2/2009. That amounts to deficiency in service. She asked refund of Rs. 44,700/- along with interest @ 10% from 10/2/2009 till its realization. She has further asked compensation of Rs. One lac for humiliation and mental agony and cost of Rs. 2,500/-.
2] The opponent appeared along with the Advocate and filed written statement as well as documents, such as panchnama, assessment sheet, affidavit, stamp executed by the complainant. According to the opponent, the officers of the opponent acted bonafidely while on duty and the action was taken under section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. While checking meters, it was found that the complainant was using electricity supply directly from service wire and committed theft of electric energy. Hence, the panchnama was prepared accordingly. The assessment sheet was also prepared. The compounding bill was issued and the complainant accepted revised bill of Rs. 43,301/- and deposited the said amount. The complaint is filed after two years from the alleged incident and the complaint is not bonafide. The opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for my determination. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service? | In the negative |
2. | What order? | Complaint is dismissed. |
REASONS :-
4] It is the case of the complainant that even though she is a domestic consumer of the opponent since 2000, she had not made default in making payment of electricity bills. In the month of Jan. 2009, the officers of the opponent abruptly entered in her house, searched certain machines and prepared false panchnama and bills. They have also prepared false stamp and assessment sheet.
It is the case of the opponent that the complainant was tapping electricity directly from the service wire and the theft of the electric energy was committed by the complainant. The panchnama was prepared accordingly. The complainant admitted compounding charges and asked time for depositing remaining amount. This is the case of theft of electric energy. There is no question of deficiency in service. The amount of compounding bill is deposited by the complainant voluntarily. In such circumstances, complaint deserves to be dismissed. It reveals from the record that even though the alleged incident took place on 20/1/2009, the present complaint is filed by the complainant in the year 2011. Even though, it appears that it is filed within the period of limitation, the conduct of the complainant is showing that the complaint is not bonafide. As the complainant did not approach any authority immediately after the alleged incident. On the contrary, the opponent has produced copy of panchnama, which is disclosing that the complainant was tapping electricity directly from the service wire. As per the contents of panchnama 40 meters black service wire was used for supply of the electricity. The complainant was using various appliances, such as refrigerator, bore pump, tillu pump, television, microwave etc. The offence under section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 was registered against the complainant. In such circumstances, it can not be said that this is the case of deficiency in service. Prima facie, it appears that the complainant has deposited amount by way of compounding charges. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for refund of money. I answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
** ORDER **
1. Complaint stands dismissed with
no order as to the costs.
2. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
3. Parties are directed to collect the sets,
which were provided for Members within
one month from the date of order, otherwise
those will be destroyed.
