DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 131 of 5.5.2008 Decided on : 24.7.2008 <br /> <br /> Amandeep Singh S/o Sh. Babu Singh, R/o Village Deon, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.Sub Division Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Goniana Sub Division, Goniana, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. S.S Sohi, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar,Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. DN-57/1141. Average amount of the bills received by him from time to time was ranging from Rs. 400/- to Rs.700/-. Memo/letter No. 1082 dated 15.4.2008 was received by him from the opposite parties in which allegation has been levelled that “there are black spots of spark on the incoming terminal of meter and consumer is taking the supply by installing Kundi and that this is the case of theft of electricity.” He assails this allegation as false and baseless. Officials of the opposite parties were checking the meter and reporting its status as Okay. Infact, meter had burnt due to sparking. There was no fault on his part. Meter was not changed. At the time of checking, meter was found perfectly in order. No Kundi was found. Supply was being used as per sanctioned load. Demand of Rs. 43,300/- raised through this memo/letter is illegal, null and void and arbitrary. Request was made to the opposite parties to withdraw this memo, but to no effect. In these circumstances, instant complaint has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw/cancel the letter/memo; not to recover the alleged amount on its basis; pay Rs.50,000/- to him as compensation for mental and physical agony, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no cause of action; he has not approached this Forum with clean hands; complaint is false and frivolous and he is not consumer. Inter-alia, their plea is that connection was checked by the Flying Squad on 28.3.2008. Black marks of sparking on the incoming terminal of the electricity meter were found. Complainant was found using the electricity by installing Kundi. It amounts to theft of energy by way of unauthorised means. Checking report was prepared at the spot. Complainant was present and he had refused to sign. Remarks to this effect were given on it. Provisional order of assessment for unauthorised use of electricity raising demand of Rs.43,300/- was issued requiring the complainant to deposit the amount within seven days or submitting objections, if any. Neither payment has been made nor objections have been preferred. They deny that the demand is illegal, null and void and arbitrary. Similarly, they do not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Amandeep Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex. C.1, photocopies of bills (Ex.C.2, Ex.C.5 & Ex.C.6), Provisional Order of Assessment dated 15.4.2008(Ex.C.3), Copy of checking report dated 28.3.2008 (Ex.C.4),photocopies of two pages of Complaint Register (Ex.C.7 & Ex.R.8).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2) of S/Sh. Jasbir Singh, AEE/SDO and Kirpal Singh, AEE(R) respectively, photocopy of Checking report (Ex.R.3) and photocopy of memo No. 1082 dated 15.4.2008 (Ex.R.4).<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Complainant reiterates his version in the complaint in his affidavit Ex.C.1. Opposite parties claim Rs. 43,300/- from him through memo No. 1082 dated 15.4.2008, copy of which is Ex.C.3, on the basis of the checking report, copy of which is Ex.C.4. Opposite parties allege that complainant was committing theft of energy as black marks of sparking on the incoming terminal of the meter were found and complainant was consuming electricity by installing Kundi by unauthorised means. Onus to prove theft of electricity is upon the opposite parties. For that they have placed on record two affidavits of S/Sh. Jasbir Singh AEE/SDO and Kirpal Singh AEE(R) respectively. Theft of electricity is to be proved like a criminal charge. There should be cogent and convincing evidence to prove it. So far as affidavit of Sh. Jasbir Singh is concerned, it does not advance the cause of the opposite parties as he was not with the alleged Flying Squad on 28.3.2008. In the reply of the complaint, opposite parties have not mentioned as to who was heading the Flying Squad on 28.3.2008. This fact has been concealed by them from this Forum for the reasons best known to them. During evidence they produced affidavit EX.R.2 of Sh. Kirpal Singh, AEE(R) who claims that connection of the complainant was checked by him on 28.3.2008 and black marks of sparking on the incoming terminal of the meter were found and complainant was found using electricity by installing Kundi and that complainant had refused to sign the checking report. Ex.R.2 stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant. He has stated in so many words that alleged checking was not done in his presence and no checking was made at the spot. Ex.R.2 does not get corroboration from any other evidence i.e. affidavit of any other official who was allegedly accompanying him. There is nothing in Ex.R.2 that Kundi was found installed at the time of checking. If Kundi was there, it could be taken into possession. Site could be got photographed or videographed. In case, complainant had refused to sign the checking report, copy of the same could be pasted at conspicuous place in/outside his premises. Simultaneously inspection report was to be sent to the complainant under registered post. Since this has not been done, there is non-compliance of C/C No. 53/2006 and Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code & Related Matters) Regulations 2007. From this non-compliance, inference is that complainant was not committing theft of electricity due to which person heading the Flying Squad did not deem it fit to comply with the mandatory circular and regulations of the Board. So far as the question that block of the meter was found burnt is concerned, there may be several reasons of its burning. It is not necessary that it would burn only if theft of electricity is committed by installing Kundi. Theft cannot be proved by way of assumptions and presumptions. Previously, complainant had made complaint regarding the burning of the block of the meter due to sparking from the wires of the terminal. That complaint was attended to by the officials of the Board as is evident from report made in the copy of the complaint register Ex.C.8 on 30.9.2007. There is nothing in the complaint register that no black marks of sparking on the incoming terminal of the meter were allowed to remain at the time of attending the complaint. It appears that opposite parties are presuming theft of electricity by way of presumptions without any solid evidence. In these circumstances, bald affidavit Ex.R.2 cannot be said to be enough for establishing allegations of the opposite parties. Hence, we are of the view that opposite parties have failed to prove theft of electricity by way of leading satisfactory evidence. When it is so, demand of Rs.43,300/- raised through memo No. 1082, copy of which is Ex.C.3, is certainly illegal, null and void and arbitrary. Deficiency in raising the demand of this amount from the complainant by the opposite parties is proved.<br /> 7. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw memo/letter No. 1082 dated 15.4.2008 as the demand of Rs. 43,300/- is illegal, arbitrary, null and void. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused mental tension and agony to the complainant for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as RS. 1,000/-.<br /> 8. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of RS.1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Withdraw memo No. 1082 dated 15.4.2008 through which demand of Rs.43,300/- has been raised from the complainant and not to recover this amount from him.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under section 14 (1)(d) of the Act.<br /> (iii) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 9. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 24.7.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member <br /> 'bsg' <br />