Satnam Dass Vs. DHBVNL                 31/2018

Present:        Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. CPS Chauhan, Advocate for OPs.

                     On the application dt.05.08.2022 of applicant/complainant , notice issued to OPs, not received back either served or unserved but counsel for the complainant place on record tracking report of the postal department reveals that notice has been delivered to OPs on12.08.2022. Sh. CPS Chauhan, Advocate on behalf of OPs made a statement that the written statement already filed by OPs may kindly be read as reply to the application dt.05.08.2022 of the applicant/complainant and further stated that as this is a case of theft of energy/electricity for which special Courts have been constituted under the Indian Electricity Act, hence this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint.

                     On enquiry, learned counsel for the complainant has admitted this fact that premises of the complainant was checked by a team of OP no.1 but submitted a false report  dt. 16.02.2015 on LL-1 form showing that premises checked in the presence of Raju & meter found installed on Pillar. At the time of checking supply found taken direct from Nigam LT Line with the help of 2/c black colour PVC appr. 8 meter but LL-1 form neither bearing the signature of consumer nor of any witness Checking report bears the signatures of the members of the alleged checking team of the Nigam and thus the LL-1 report is totally false.

          We have gone through the checking report dt.16.02.2015 which reveals that premises of the complainant checked on 16.02.2015 by a team of OP no.1 and complaint was found consuming electricity by putting direct wire approx. 8 mtr. of 2/c black colour PVC from the main LT line of the Nigam. The wire was removed and packed, the total load found consuming was .888KW against a sanction load of 2KW. The nigam calculated the loss of energy caused by the complainant to be of Rs. 7434/-, which has been deposited by the complainant but when the audit was done by the audit party it was found that Nigam has not calculated the loss as per the latest circular and thus ordered to deposit another Rs. 18975/- which was not deposited by the complainant and now nigam have refused to accept the current bill of the complainant.

                     As it is admitted case of the complainant that it is a case of theft of energy, hence this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the same. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. However, complainant is at liberty to avail remedy available him under the law. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

          Member                 Member                 President               

                                                                        DCDRC, Bhiwani

                                                                        17.08.2022