DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No.298 of 23.10.2007 Decided on : 17.1.2008 <br /> <br /> Bachan Singh S/o Sh. Megal Singh, R/o Village Bhaini Chuhar, District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.A.E.E./S.D.O, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Maur, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, 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 /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Inderjit Singh Mann, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Abhey Singla, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. BC-25/--18-H has been got installed by the complainant from the opposite parties in his residential premises in village Bhaini Chuhar. He was paying the electricity consumption charges regularly. Bill dated 18.9.2007 was received by him for Rs. 11,040/- for consumption of six units only. In this bill, a sum of Rs. 10,870/- has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances without disclosing its details. Opposite party No. 2 was approached by him to enquire about the demand of Rs. 10,870/-. Threat was extended to him to deposit the entire amount failing which his electricity connection would be disconnected. He (complainant) assails this demand of Rs. 10,870/- as illegal, null and void, inoperative and not binding upon him on the grounds that connection is being utilised by him for domestic purposes and no commercial activity is being done by him; no checking whatsoever was conducted by the officials of the opposite parties at any time in his presence or in the presence of his representative nor was he indulging in theft of electricity; no show cause notice was served upon him; no opportunity of being heard was afforded; no demand was ever raised vide separate memo and this amount has been charged straightway in the bill and nature of demand raised has not been disclosed. He alleges that his request to quash the demand of Rs.10,870/- has not been acceded to by the opposite parties. Act and conduct of the opposite parties have caused him mental tension and agony and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by him seeking direction to the opposite parties to quash the impugned demand of Rs. 10,870/- and excess amount, if any, got deposited under compelled circumstances be ordered to be refunded alongwith interest @ 18% P.A till realization; pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages on account of mental tension and agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version admitting that domestic electricity connection is lying installed in the name of the complainant. Bill for Rs. 11,040/- was issued to him which includes Rs. 10,870/- as sundry charges. Inter-alia, their plea is that on 12.8.2006 connection was checked by Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement-I in the presence of Maghar Singh representative of the complainant. Meter of the complainant was switched off. Complainant had tapped the direct supply from the joint of the service cable passing through adjoining his house. It was a case of theft. Facts were entered in the checking report No. 3/333 dated 12.8.2006. Directions were issued for installing the meter near the main gate. Checking report was signed by Maghar Singh. On its basis, opposite party No. 2 had issued memo No. 1353 dated 18.6.2006(infact 18.8.2006) for Rs. 10,870/-. Since, amount was not deposited on the basis of memo No. 1353, it has been added in the regular bill dated 18.9.2007 as sundry charges. As per direction of the checking officer, meter and place of the meter were changed on 24.4.2007 on the basis of MCO No. 035/83614 dated 5.10.2006. They deny that the demand of Rs. 10,870/- is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the complaint and there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Bachan Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1) and photocopy of bill (Ex.C.2).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Ranjit Singh, SDO, photocopy of checking report dated 12.8.2006 (Ex.R.2), photocopy of memo dated 18.8.2006 (Ex.R.3), photocopy of MCO dated 5.10.2006 (Ex.R.4) and photocopy of one page of despatch register (Ex.R.5).<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 6. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Mann learned counsel for the complainant are that no checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant or his son Maghar Singh. Infact, officials of the Board had visited the premises of the complainant on 24.4.2007 for removing the meter from the existing place and for installing it outside the premises. They had demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification. When Maghar Singh son of the complainant refused to pay illegal gratification, they obtained his signatures on some printed forms on the ground that they are in connection with the change of place of the meter. Again Rs. 5,000/- were demanded as illegal gratification. When Maghar Singh refused to pay the amount, threat was given that they would have to pay much more than Rs. 5,000/-. His next argument is that opposite parties have manipulated the blank printed forms into alleged checking report dated 12.8.2006 in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Memo No. 1353 dated 18.8.2006 has not been served upon the complainant. Had there been checking for which memo was issued, opposite parties would have charged the amount in the bill much prior to the bill dated 18.9.2007.<br /> 7. Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that checking of the connection of the complainant was conducted on 12.8.2006 in the presence of the son of the complainant namely Maghar Singh. Consumer was found committing theft of energy. Memo dated 18.8.2006 was issued raising the demand of Rs.10,870/-. When complainant did not deposit the amount, it has been added in the impugned bill dated 18.9.2007. On the basis of the Meter Change Order dated 5.10.2006, meter was changed and installed at a different place on 24.4.2007.<br /> 8. We have considered the respective arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. True that complainant has levelled allegations against the opposite parties in his affidavit Ex.C.1 regarding the demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/-, obtaining of signatures of his son on some printed forms and creation of the checking report dated 12.8.2006 on the basis of the printed forms and non issuance of memo No. 1353 dated 18.8.2006, copy of which is Ex.R.3, but they do not stand substantiated. No amount of evidence can be considered if it is beyond pleadings. These allegations in the affidavit Ex.C.1 do not find mention in the averments in the complaint. It being so, they are afterthought. Affidavit of the complainant stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Ranjit Singh, SDO. All the official acts performed by the public servants in the discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct. Stance of the complainant in Ex.C.1 that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was demanded as illegal gratification on 24.4.2007, does not appeal to reason. If this demand was raised, complainant would not have sit folded handed, particularly when his allegation is that threat was extended that they would have to pay much more than Rs. 5,000/-. He could move the higher authorities i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, senior officers of the Board or the Deputy Commissioner. From this, inference is that plea taken by the complainant is a made up one in order to thwart the demand of Rs. 10,870/- raised by the opposite parties. Checking was made by the Senior Executive Engineer. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has conceded that the checking report bears the signatures of Maghar Singh son of the complainant. Checking report is dated 12.8.2006. No-doubt, in the reply of the complaint date of issuance of memo No. 1353 is dated 18.6.2006. No weight can be attached to the date mentioned as 18.6.2006. Men may tell lies but documents cannot. A perusal of the copy of the memo No. 1353 (Ex.R.3) reveals that it is dated 18.8.2006 instead of 18.6.2006. Sh. Ranjit Singh, SDO in his affidavit Ex.R.1 has clarified that memo No. 1353 dated 18.8.2006 was issued to the complainant raising the demand of Rs. 10,870/-. When checking report is dated 12.8.2006 and on its basis, memo dated 18.8.2006 was issued, it does not appeal to logic that printed forms were got signed from the son of the complainant namely Maghar Singh on 24.4.2007 and subsequently documents were created. Serial-wise different numbers are given to different letters, memos etc. date-wise. How can it be believed that signatures of Maghar Singh were obtained on 24.4.2007 and thereafter memo No. 1353 dated 18.8.2006 was issued. On the basis of the evidence of the opposite parties, facts and circumstances, conclusion is that checking of the connection of the complainant was done in the presence of his son Maghar Singh on 12.8.2006 and it was found that meter was switched off. Consumer had tapped supply from the joint of the service cable and was committing theft of energy. Accordingly, memo was issued raising the demand. When complainant did not deposit the amount of Rs.10,870/- disclosed in the memo, copy of which is Ex.R.3, it has been added in the impugned memo. Fact that checking report is dated 12.8.2006, memo is dated 18.8.2006 and the amount of Rs. 10870/- has been added in the bill dated 18.9.2007, does not advance the cause of the complainant. Delay in adding the amount of Rs. 10,870/- in the impugned bill does not take away the effect of commission of theft of energy which otherwise stands established from the evidence on the record. Learned counsel for the complainant failed to show as to which other opportunity was to be afforded to the complainant in the present scenario when his son was present at the time of checking. In these circumstances, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties is proved.<br /> 9. In the premises written above, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 17.01.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />