BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 55 of 2017
Date of Institution : 8.3.2017
Date of Decision : 26.9.2017.
Mehain Singh aged about 70 years son of Shri Amar Singh, resident of village Kanganpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam through its Managing Director at Hisar.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, T-21, Sub Urban Division, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rishi Sharma, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that there is an electricity connection bearing account No.T21-SS04-0585 in the house of the complainant for domestic purposes. The said connection has been installed outside of the premises of complainant since for the last several years. The complainant has been making the payment of consumption charges to the ops time to time without any interruption. That on 24.9.2015, the officials of the ops raided the house of complainant but at the time of raid, no dishonest use of electricity was found at the spot. A report LL1 bearing No.000326 was prepared at the spot by the officials of the ops in this regard. It is further averred that aforesaid electricity meter of the complainant has been running fast and the complainant had been receiving electricity bills more than the consumption charges hence on 23.10.2015 the complainant moved an application to op no.2 and showed his desire to get his meter tested from the laboratory. On the application of complainant, the ops got deposited an amount of Rs.90/- from him on account of lab. testing charges vide receipt bearing book No.002534, receipt No.81 dated 23.10.2015. It is further averred that thereafter the ops never visited the house of complainant nor they took the meter for testing to the laboratory. Thereafter, the complainant received a bill dated 2.12.2015 vide which the ops have claimed an amount of Rs.22650/- as consumption charges. On receipt of the bill, the complainant immediately approached the ops and requested them to withdraw the above said bill which has been based on the faulty meter and further requested them to issue the fresh bill as per the actual consumption of units upon which it was promised by the officials of the ops that at the earliest, the team of the ops shall visit his premises and shall remove the said meter from the spot. It was further promised that the meter shall be got tested from the concerned laboratory of the ops and thereafter fresh bill as per the actual consumption of units shall be issued to the complainant. It is further averred that after some days, the officials of the ops visited the house of complainant and removed his meter and made temporary arrangements for electricity supply of the house of complainant by connecting direct supply of the electricity with the pretext that the same shall be replaced with new one after getting the same tested from the lab and fresh bill shall be issued. But inspite of passing of sufficient period, neither the officials of the ops came back to replace the meter nor any fresh bill has been issued to him despite repeated requests of the ops rather they have threatened the complainant to deposit the amount under the disputed bill at the earliest otherwise a false criminal complaint under the provisions of Electricity Act shall be launched against the complainant and the amount of bill shall be recovered from him coercively. This act on the part of the ops is in violation of the mandatory provisions of law as well as in violation of the Electricity Rules and Act. That in this manner, since the day of removal of the meter, he has not been receiving the electricity from the ops and ops are continuously threatening the complainant that no electricity shall be provided to him until or unless the amount of bill is paid. That such act and conduct on the part of the ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which he has suffered unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability of complaint; locus standi; cause of action; estoppal and suppression of material facts and that complainant has already filed a suit for declaration in respect of the same subject matter which is pending in the Court of Shri R.P. Singh, learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, so the present complaint cannot proceed any further. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and had been indulged in theft of energy. The complainant made payment of the consumption charges of the Nigam up to May, 2015. In July, 2015, the complainant was served with a bill of Rs.16,352/- which included Rs.11,361/- as sundry charges. However, the complainant made payment of a sum of Rs.8,000/- out of this bill and thus, a sum of Rs.8835/- remained due against him. Thereafter, the complainant did not make payment of subsequent consumption charges bills and above said due amount of Rs.8835/-. Accordingly, vide PDCO No.17/1131 dated 5.2.2016, the electric connection of complainant was permanently disconnected, which is continuing till date. Thereafter, on 21.3.2016 the premises of the complainant was raided and he was found committing theft of electricity by way of directly supply. A sum of Rs.38,997/- as loss to Nigam and a sum of Rs.4000/- as compounding fee was imposed upon the complainant, which he did not pay to the Nigam. Again on 3.10.2016, the premises of complainant was raided and he was again found committing theft of energy by way of direct supply. The complainant was further imposed a sum of Rs.26,363/- as loss to the Nigam, which was also not paid by complainant. The ops have already reported the said matter of theft of energy to the police and further action is being taken against him in accordance with law. So, it does not lie in the mouth of complainant that he has not been declared as defaulter of the Nigam. It is further submitted that the electric supply to the premises of the complainant cannot be restored till he makes payments of due consumption charges as well as amounts of Loss to Nigam and compounding fees for committing theft of energy. The contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of application dated 23.10.2015 Ex.CW1/B, copy of receipt of Rs.8000/- Ex.CW1/C, copy of bill dated 2.12.2015 Ex.CW1/D, copy of LL-I Ex.CW1/E and copy of receipt of Rs.90/- Ex.CW1/F. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R18.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The perusal of record reveal that complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that electric connection was installed outside his premises for the last so many years and he was enjoying the electricity services from the ops. On 24.9.2015, the officials of the ops raided the house and a report LL1 bearing No.000326 was prepared at the spot. The electricity meter of the complainant was running fast, bills were being issued for more consumption and the complainant deposited Rs.90/- for testing of meter in the laboratory but however, meter was not taken to M.E. Lab. The complainant received a bill dated 2.12.2015 vide which a demand of Rs.22,650/- was made. The meter of the complainant was also removed and same was not restored. In order to prove his case, complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copy of application dated 23.10.2015 Ex.CW1/B, copy of receipt of Rs.8000/- Ex.CW1/C, copy of bill dated 2.12.2015 Ex.CW1/D, copy of LL-I Ex.CW1/E and copy of receipt of Rs.90/- Ex.CW1/F. On the other hand, ops in order to prove their defence plea have furnished affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Godara, SDO as Ex.R1 who has reiterated all the contents of the defence plea of the ops. He has specifically deposed that complainant was served with a bill of Rs.16,352/- which included Rs.11,361/- as sundry charges but complainant made payment of Rs.8000/- out of the said bill and remaining amount of Rs.8835/- remained unpaid and vide PDCO No.17/1131 dated 5.2.2016, the electric connection of the complainant was permanently disconnected. Thereafter on 21.3.2016, premises of the complainant was raided and he was found committing theft of electricity by way of direct supply. A sum of Rs.38,997/- as loss to the Nigam and a sum of Rs.4,000/- as compounding fee was imposed upon the complainant which he did not pay. Again the premises of complainant was raided on 3.10.2016 and he was found committing theft of energy by way of direct supply and further a sum of Rs.26,363/- was imposed as loss to the Nigam and same was also not paid.
6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that the ops did not send the meter in ME laboratory for testing the same even after deposit of Rs.90/- as testing fee by the complainant and further more, the ops are issuing memo after memo and making demands of thousands of rupees illegally and arbitrarily from the complainant though he is an ex-service man and is not in position to pay the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has strongly contended that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and he is in the habit of committing theft of energy and he was found committing theft of energy on 21.3.2016 as well as on 3.10.2016. The complainant has already approached the Civil Court prior to filing the present complaint and the matter is already subjudiced before the Civil Court and further more in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as 2013 (4) LJR 761 titled as U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Anis Ahmad, the jurisdiction of the District Forum is barred as it is a clear cut case of theft of energy under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. Though, it is an admitted fact between parties qua electric connection from which the complainant was getting supply to his premises prior to its disconnection and had been making payment of the bills of the electricity, the complainant has himself admitted about the raid of the house of complainant on 24.9.2015 and issuing of the report LLI at the spot. Though the complainant has not referred in his complaint about the raid of the opposite parties which was conducted on 21.3.2016 as well as on 3.10.2016 but however, he has given the reference of memo by which ops had claimed an amount of Rs.22,650/- as consumption charges. Further more, the complainant has not referred in his complaint about the challenging of this memo before the learned Additional District Judge at Sirsa and about the pendency of the civil suit. The complainant has also concealed the fact qua the raid which was conducted by the officials of the ops on 21.3.2016 and 3.10.2016 by which the complainant was allegedly found while committing theft of energy and the memos of the amounts were issued by the officials of the ops thereafter. The affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A is also silent qua the raids conducted by the officials of the ops and issuance of memos on the basis of theft report though the complainant was well aware of these facts while contesting the civil suit before the court of Learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa and further more, the ops had placed on record the documents Ex.R8 and Ex.R9 by which the SDO had written letters to SHO for lodging FIR under Section 135 read with Section 151 of Electricity Act, 2003 against the complainant. So, once it is proved on record that complaint involves factum of theft of energy which is to be adjudicated by the Designated Court, the jurisdiction of this Forum is barred in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as 2013 (4) LJR 761 titled as U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others vs. Anis Ahmad.
8. In view of the above, present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and as such same stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:26.9.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
