BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No: 96 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 14.08.2008<br /> Date of Service: 11.09.2008<br /> Decided On: 31.10.2008<br /> <br /> Sarwan Singh (aged 35 years) son of Mukhtiar Singh, resident of Peapian Wali Gali, Moga, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.<br /> Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Moga.<br /> 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, South Sub Division, Moga.<br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Adv.counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv. counsel for the OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Sarwan Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its Executive Engineer and others-opposite parties (herein-after referred to as ‘Board’) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.10020/- raised vide memo dated 28.07.2007 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Sarwan Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having NRS electric connection bearing account no.FZ4KR94/0037A installed at his premises with sanctioned load of 1.54 KW. That the complainant had been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That the OPs-Board had sent a memo no.1446 dated 28.07.2008 vide which they demanded Rs.10020/- on account of theft of energy. That the impugned demand of the OPs-Board was altogether wrong, illegal and in gross violation of prescribed rules and regulations of the PSEB. That the complainant never indulged in ‘theft of energy’ as alleged in this memo. That the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board time and again and requested to withdraw the impugned amount, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.20000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.S.K.Dhir, Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. In fact, on 26.07.2007 Sh.R.K.Joshi AE and other officials of the OPs-Board jointly checked the premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by way of installing artificial circuit in the wiring of the house and cooler, fans etc. and the meter was not running at the spot. The checking was made in the presence of Harbhajan Singh representative of the complainant, but he refused to sign the checking report. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, notice no. 1446 dated 28.07.2008 was issued to the complainant raising a demand of Rs.10020/- on account of theft of energy under section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 to file the objections, if any, against the notice of provisional assessment. That the complainant did not file the objections against the said notice of provisional assessment. Thus, after the lapse of seven days from the receipt of notice of provisional assessment, the provisional assessment became final to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. On merits, the OPs-Board took up the same and similar plea as taken up by them in preliminary objections. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of memo Ex.A2, copies of bills Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Addl. S.E. Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh.R.K.Joshi AE Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Sanjeev Sharma ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.K.Dhir ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Sh.Sanjeev Sharma ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.10020/- raised vide memo dated 28.07.2007 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in ‘theft of energy’. <br /> 8. On the other hand, Sh.S.K.Dhir ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has argued that on 26.07.2007 Sh.R.K.Joshi AE and other officials of the OPs-Board jointly checked the premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by illegal means i.e. by way of installing artificial circuit in the wiring of the house and cooler, fans etc. and the meter was not running at the spot. The checking was made in the presence of Harbhajan Singh representative of the complainant, but he refused to sign the checking report. That the checking authority declared it as a case of ‘theft of energy’. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has some force. Admittedly, on 26.07.2007 Sh.R.K.Joshi AE and other officials of the OPs-Board jointly checked the premises of the complainant and they found him committing ‘theft of energy’ in the aforesaid manners. The checking was conducted in the presence Harbhajan Singh representative of the complainant but he refused to sign the checking report. Thereafter, provisional notice no. 1446 dated 28.07.2008 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.10020/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 on account of ‘theft of energy’. In the instant case, the OPs-Board had issued the notice of provisional assessment for unauthorized use of electricity in exercise of power under section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 asking the complainant to give its reply within 7 days. But the complainant has failed to file any reply against the same. Thus, the said notices have become the final order.<br /> 9. Moreover, under the new Electricity Act 2003, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because the only remedy available to the complainant is to file an appeal under section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Appellant Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner/ Addl. Deputy Commissioner or Sub Divisional Magistrate as the case may be, against the orders of the Assessing Officer made under section 126 of the said Act. Hence, in view of the latest provisions of Electricity Act 2003 and circulars of the PSEB, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint on account of ‘theft of energy’ in aforesaid manners. <br /> 10. Furthermore, the charge of theft has been proved from the checking report Ex.R3. It stands corroborated from the affidavit of Sh.M.S.Brar, Addl. S.E. Ex.R1, affidavit of Sh.R.K.Joshi AE Ex.R2, copy of checking report Ex.R3, copy of notice Ex.R4.<br /> 11. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not committing theft of electricity except his own affidavit Ex.A1. There is no corroboration to his affidavit that he was not stealing the electricity by illegal means. Moreover, he has reason to give false affidavit in order to save himself from the consequences of being caught red handed while stealing the electricity by illegal means. Thus, no reliance could be placed on the affidavit Ex.A1 of the complainant and we discard the same.<br /> 12. Further, the checking party had acted in accordance with rules and regulations issued by PSEB from time to time and in discharge of their official duties. They were supposed to do all their acts bonafidely and in good faith and without any malice or motive. The complainant has not alleged any ill-will or animus against them. They have no reason to make a wrong report against him. In view of these circumstances, we hold that on 26.7.2008 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means. Thus, the impugned demand of Rs.10020/- made from the complainant on account of ‘theft of energy’ by the OPs-Board was quite legal and valid and as per rules and instructions of the PSEB. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove if there was any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs-Board. <br /> 13. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order shall be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:31.10.2008.<br /> <br /> hrg*<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />