DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC.No.247 of 11.09.2009<br /> Decided on: 12.11.2009<br /> Avtar Singh C/o Khala Tyre Works, Tinkoni, Bathinda.<br /> ……..Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2. Superintendent Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Distribution, Distt. Bathinda.<br /> 3. A.E.E./S.D.O., City Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bathinda.<br /> ……..Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sushil Goyal, counsel for opposite parties.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh. George, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> GEORGER, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that complainant-Avtar Singh, is holding NRS connection No. GR 57/68, for his repair shop of Tyre and Tubes, which he has been running for self- employment to earn livelihood for himself and his family, by repairing tyre and tubes. He has been served with a memo dated 04.09.2009, received by him, on 07.09.2009, whereby he has been called upon by the opposite parties, to pay Rs. 24,927/- on account of checking his electric meter by P.S.E.B. On checking, it was found that complainant was getting electricity by putting the direct ‘kundi’ bypassing the meter from the service line by making the joint in main line from his house. He was given 15 days time to file objections, if any. On the same time, he was also advised to pay Rs. 10,000/- for compounding the offence. He has pleaded that he never involved in any theft and that no checking was made in his presence. He has been involved in the theft of electric energy, without following the provisions laid down under Section 126, or Section 135 of the Electricity Act, and also in violation of the mandatory provision of Regulation 36.1(g), the Provisional Assessment Order has not been issued to the complainant within 48 hours after inspection. The alleged inspection took place on 31.08.2009, whereas Provisional Assessment Order served upon him on 07.09.2009, and there after without waiting for the objections from the complainant, electric connection was disconnected on 07.09.2009 forcibly and illegally, and therefore, complainant has sought quashing the memo dated 04.09.2009, and restoration of his electric meter, and also compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite parties contested the allegations raising legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant is not a consumer as he is holding NRS connection; complainant was found indulging in theft of electricity, and therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint, and complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum, and suppressed the material facts. The true facts are that the connection of the complainant was checked by Sh. Krishan Kumar Gupta, Senior XEN, and Sh. Ranjit Singh, SDO, Flying squad-II, Bathinda, on 31.08.2009, in the presence of complainant, and during checking, it was found that the complainant was getting electricity by putting the direct kundi by passing the meter from the main service line by making the joint in the service line, and held it to be a case of theft of electricity. A detailed checking report was prepared at the site, in the presence of complainant, and checking party recommended for taking action, and also for installing the meter outside the house in the MCB. A copy of checking report was given to the complainant. On the basis of checking report, a demand notice dt. 04.09.2009, was issued to the complainant for Rs. 24,927/- as per Rules of P.S.E.B., and complainant was advised to deposit Rs. 10,000/- for compounding the offence. The complainant failed to deposit the amount, but he filed objections, and his connection was disconnected on 08.09.2009 by Surinder Singla, J.E.<br /> 3. Complainant in order to prove the allegations, filed his two affidavits dt. 19.10.09 and dt. 11.09.09 Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-3, and also brought on record, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-2; copy of letter dt. 04.09.09 regarding Provisional Assessment Order Ex.C-4; copy of objections dt. 07.09.09 Ex.C-5 and copy of postal receipt Ex.C-6.<br /> 4. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite parties filed affidavits of Er. R.K. Singla, AEE/SDO, Er. Krishan Kumar Gupta, Senior XEN and Er. Ranjit Singh, SDO dt. 27.10.09 Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3, and also brought on record, copy of checking report dt. 31.08.09 Ex.R-4; copy of Provisional Assessment Order dt. 04.09.09 Ex.R-5; copy of Consumption Data Ex.R-6, and copy of disconnection order dt. 04.09.09 Ex.R-7.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 6. The entire case of the opposite parties for theft of electric energy against the complainant is based on spot checking report Ex.R-4. According to affidavit of Er. R.K. Singla, AEE/SDO Ex.R-1, the checking was conducted on 31.08.2009 by Er. Krishan Kumar Gupta, Senior XEN and Er. Ranjit Singh, SDO at Bathinda, in presence of the complainant. Opposite parties have brought on record, affidavit of Er. Krishan Kumar Gupta, Senior XEN and Er. Ranjit Singh, SDO Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3. In these affidavits, both Er. Krishan Kumar Gupta, Senior XEN and Er. Ranjit Singh, SDO have deposed that on 31.08.2009, the NRS connection of the complainant was checked in presence of the complainant. A detailed report was prepared at the site in the presence of complainant, and a copy of checking report was given to the complainant. However, on perusal of Ex.R-4, there is no site plan shown as, to where from, the complainant was abstracting electricity unauthorizedly by way of direct kundi connection by passing his electric meter. Moreover, Ex.R-4, does not bear, the signatures of the complainant. It also does not reveal that complainant refused to sign on checking report Ex.R-4. It also does not reveal that a copy of the checking report Ex.R-4 was delivered to the complainant on the spot. Er. Krishan Kumar Gupta, Senior XEN and Er. Ranjit Singh, SDO, who are specifically trained, and have been posted in Flying squad-II for detection of theft of electric energy cases, seem to have no knowledge as to how to investigate and prepare reports in cases pertaining to theft of electric energy. As to why, these two Senior Officials of P.S.E.B. posted in Flying squad-II, failed to prepare the actual spot map, showing the main supply line, where from kundi connection bypassing the meter of the complainant, and it was connected to the supply of his house by passing the electric meter. These entire processes might have been done by the complainant by using some equipment like wires etc. As to why, this equipment was not taken into possession, and brought before the Forum, remained unexplained. It appears from the record that both the Officials Er. Krishan Kumar Gupta, Senior XEN as well as Er. Ranjit Singh, SDO, while preparing Ex.R-4 actual in the most casual manner abdicating all the Rules and Regulations, and procedural requirements in preparing the theft cases of electric energy, in such a manner, which is bound to fail under all circumstances. The averments made by Er. Krishan Kumar Gupta, Senior XEN and Er. Ranjit Singh, SDO in their affidavits Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3 that “the checking was conducted in presence of the complainant”, “a detailed checking report was prepared at the site in the presence of complainant” and “a copy of the checking report was given to the complainant”, appears to have been made falsely, because if this would have been a true position, they would have definitely reflected the same in the checking report Ex.R-4. The senior officers of the Flying Squad-II of the rank of XEN and SDO are required to prepare memo in such likes cases of theft of electric energy. They are required to take photographs on the spot as well as are also required to do videography to establish the charge of theft of electric energy, but in the present case, both the Officials have acted in most negligent and causal manner, and it appears, they were satisfied by preparing a memo Ex.R-4, which in fact has no legal meaning to connect the complainant with the commission of theft of electric energy. The theft being a criminal charge required the strict proof, which is not established in the present case, in view of the facts and circumstances, we have discussed here-in-above. It has been held by the Hon’ble Haryana State Consumer Commission in the case reported as 1998 (2) CLT-P.24, that charge of theft of energy is a criminal charge and a strict proof is required to establish the offence as is required before a criminal court. Of course, niceties/technicalities of Evidence Act regarding the production of evidence can be overlooked. However, the charge has to be proved. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in case titled Charan Singh Vs. The Chairman, P.S.E.B. and another, reported as 2006 (1) CPC 285. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, as referred to here-in-above, we hereby accept the complaint, and direct opposite parties to withdraw the impugned order i.e. Ex.R-5 dt. 04.09.2009, as the same stands quashed. Both the parties are left to be bear their own costs. <br /> 7. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and fine be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (GEORGE)<br /> 12.11.2009 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br />