Uttar Pradesh

Aligarh

CC/59/2011

ARJUNSINGH ADVOCATE - Complainant(s)

Versus

EXECUTIVE ENGNEER - Opp.Party(s)

01 May 2023

ORDER

न्यायालय जिला उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग अलीगढ

Complaint Case No. CC/59/2011 ( Date of Filing : 05 Mar 2011 )   1. ARJUNSINGH ADVOCATE S/O LATE BABULAL R/O HN 19/292 GANDHINAGAR ALIGARH ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. EXECUTIVE ENGNEER ELECTRICITY URBAN DISTRIBUTION DIVSION I UDAI SINGH JAIN ROAD ALIGARH ............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:     HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI PRESIDENT   HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA MEMBER   HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT MEMBER

PRESENT:

Dated : 01 May 2023

Final Order / Judgement The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs- The Op be directed to repay the cost of increased power consumption Rs.6000/, saman shulk Rs8000/ and provisional assessment Rs.44269/ with penal interest.  Rs. 10000/ as cost of damages. The Complainant has stated that he is a consumer with the domestic connection no. 0943/021562 of 2KW installed at his premises. The meter of the connection was stolen in the night of 26.6.2009. The occurrence was reported to JE meter and SDO Division II Sasni Gate , Aligarh same day and report was also lodged at the Police Station Gandhi Park. In the absence of the meter the electricity bills were paid for the unmetered supply from 17.6.2009 to 18.11.2009. SDO II supplied the meter on 22.09.2010. After inspection made on 18.9.2010. the inspection team visited on 18.9.2010 the connection no. 0943/031082 of Krishna Gopal S/o Complainant and removed the meter same day as it was in dispute in the case no. 40/2006 State V/s Puspendra Kumar U/s 335/338 Electricity Act,2003 pending in the court of Special Judge, SDO thereafter visited the connection of consumer no. 0943/021562 in his absence on 18.9.2010 at house no. 19/292 in Gandhi Nagar, Aligarh. The total load 1900 watts of items were shown in the checking report and the connection was disconnected. The SDO handed over the checking report to Vijay Kumar at his Hathras addda office alleging that the consumer was involve in committing theft of electricity direct the connecting with the electric poll. The cost of electricity Rs.6000/ and saman shlk Rs.8000/ total Rs.14000/ were charged from the complainant’s son Vijay Kumar  which was illegal and inconsistent with provisions of Electricity Act,2003 and UP Electricity Supply code,2005  on 22.9.2010 meter was installed. The consumption 1900watts shown in the checking report was deliberately and unfairly shown as increased consumption by the inspection team. Whereas the consumption was not increased more than 2KW. The checking report was falsely prepared by SDO at the instance of Op who was not in would terms with him ever since he stared defending his son Krishana Gopal. Checking was not signed by the consumer. Complainant challenged the provisional assessment Rs.44269/ made U/s 126 Electricity Act, 2003.  On the ground of the assessment being false and stolen meter was not replace for a long period.    Op has sated in the WS that an electricity connection 2KW no.0943/021562 was sanctioned in the name of the complainant wherein the previous meter was replaced by new meter on 18.9.2010 the premises of the complainant was inspected by the checking party in presence of complainant’s son and two cables was found directly connected and it was told that that the one meter of the connection was stolen on 26.6.2009. Checking party prepared   checking report no. 637/30 dated 18.9.2010 pertaining to connection no. 0943/021562. In this report recommendation for installation for meter and prepation of bill was made in the said checking report consumer was found using load 2570 watts. In another checking report 637/31 dated 18.9.2010 facts  regarding  direct theft of energy of 1900 watts was mentioned correctly. The son of consumer was found at the time of checking premises who admit the direct theft of energy. Hence the connection was disconnected. Complainant deposited Rs. 6000/+ Rs8000/ as provisional assessment admitting theft. Complainant had deposited provisional assessment amount Rs.6000/ voluntarily and the allegation of the complainant contrary to above are false. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Op has also filed affidavit in support of their  pleadings. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled for the relifs claimed? Its appears from the pleadings of the parties that the inspecting team check the premises of the complainant and prepared to checking report. Checking report no. 637/30 pertaining 0943/021562 in which recommendation for installation for meter and propagation of bill was made in the said report the load consumed was found 2570watt. This report pertains to the premises from where the meter was alleged to have stolen and therefore bills were raised as unmetered supply. Another checking report no. 637/31 dated 18.9.2010 pertains to the premises where the direct theft of energy 1900watts was found and complainant’s son was present at the time of checking who admitted the theft. The provisional assessment Rs.6000/ and Compounding fees Rs.8000/ were paid having admitted the fact of electricity theft. There appears no cogent region to disbelieve the version of OP regarding commission of electricity theft. In view of facts and circumstances we found no substance in the complaint. The complaint is liable to dismiss.  The question formulated above is decided in against the complainant.  We hereby dismissed the complaint.  A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded as per rule on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.

[HON'BLE MR. HASNAIN QURESHI] PRESIDENT     [HON'BLE MR. ALOK UPADHYAYA] MEMBER     [HON'BLE MRS. PURNIMA SINGH RAJPOOT] MEMBER