DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 117 of 21.4.2008 Decided on : 17.6.2008 <br /> <br /> Gurmail Singh S/o Gurbax Singh S/o Sh. Prem Singh, R/o Village Bath, Tehsil Nathana, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.A.E.E./SDO, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Nathana, 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. Ashok Gupta, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. J.P.S Brar, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant who is holder of domestic electricity connection with sanctioned load of 2.480 K.W.s has received memo No. 3029 dated 18.2.2008 from the opposite parties whereby demand of Rs. 42,162/- has been raised from him. Their allegation is that he had made joint in the main service cable and had connected wire one metre prior to the electric meter installed in his premises and in this manner, he was using entire load by way of bye-passing the meter and as such, was committing theft of energy. He assails this memo as illegal on the grounds that no checking was done on 30.1.2008 by the alleged Flying Squad in his presence nor his signatures were obtained; his connection was disconnected without affording any opportunity to him; wire was not removed in his presence; meter was forcibly removed in the first week of March, 2008. It was not sealed and packed. His signatures were not obtained on temporary disconnection order. Had his connection been checked, the officials would have checked the connections of other residents. Request was made by him to the opposite parties to withdraw the memo/demand, but to no effect. 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 seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned memo or quash it; restore his electricity connection; pay Rs. 25,000/- for mental tension, harassment and botheration, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking preliminary objections that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainant is not consumer and complaint has been filed with malafide intention. On merits, they admit that complainant is holder of electricity connection bearing A/c No. BT-13/223. Memo No. 3029 dated 18.2.2008 was sent to him raising demand of Rs. 42,162/-. Checking was done by the Enforcement Wing of the Board in the presence of his representative namely Darshan Singh who had appended his signatures on the checking report admitting it as correct. Copy of the checking report was also given. Complainant was indulging in theft of electricity. He was also using excess load than the sanctioned one. They deny that impugned memo is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurmail Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.5), affidavits (Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3) of S/Sh. Gora Singh, Member Panchayat and Gurdas Singh respectively, photocopy of Ration Card (Ex.C.4) and photocopy of Provisional Order of Assessment (Ex.C.6).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3) of S/Sh. C.D. Mittal Senior Executive Engineer Enforcement-II, Darbara Singh, J.E and Jasbir Singh, SDO respectively, photocopy of checking report (Ex.R.4) and photocopy of Provisional Order of Assessment (Ex.R.5).<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 6. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant argued that electricity connection of the complainant was not checked on 30.1.2008. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavits Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.5 of the complainant and affidavits of S/Sh. Gora Singh & Gurdas Singh which are Ex.C.2 & Ex.C.3 respectively. His next contention is that Darshan Singh has no connection with the complainant as he is not his family member as is evident from the copy of the Ration Card Ex.C.4. Provisional order of assessment Ex.C.6 is illegal, arbitrary, null and void as checking has not been done in the presence of the complainant or his representative and the alleged wire was not sealed.<br /> 7. Mr. Brar, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that there is nothing to disbelieve affidavits Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.3 and copy of the checking report Ex.R.4. Darshan Singh representative of the complainant was present at the time of checking and he had signed the report and that its copy was also supplied to him.<br /> 8. We have considered the respective arguments. Learned counsel for the complainant could not show us any provision, rule or regulation according to which in such like situation wire with the help of which theft is committed must be sealed. No-doubt, Gora Singh and Gurdas Singh in their affidavits have stated that there was no checking of the electricity connections on 30.1.2008 and that there is no person in the name of Darshan Singh in their locality. So far as affidavits Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.5 are concerned, they are of the complainant who is highly interested for the success of his case. Affidavits of the co-villagers who are generally interested in the case of the inhabitants of their village require close scrutiny. They do not state that there is no Darshan Singh in their village. Their affidavits are that there is no person with the name of Darshan Singh in their locality. No provision of law has been shown to us that the representative of the complainant should be the resident of his locality or he must be closely related to him. There is nothing to disbelieve the affidavits of S/Sh. C.D Mittal and Darbara Singh which are Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2 respectively. It is evident from the statement of Sh. C.D Mittal, Senior Executive Engineer that electricity connection was checked on 30.1.2008 in the presence of the representative of the complainant namely Darshan Singh. Checking report was prepared at the spot and complainant was found indulging in theft of electricity by unauthorised means by way of bye-passing the electric meter. It is further in Ex.R.1 that wire used for causing theft of electricity was recovered which was entrusted to J.E Darbara Singh. Checking report was signed by Darshan Singh and its copy was supplied to him. Ex.R.1 is corroborated with the affidavits of S/Sh. Darbara Singh and Jasbir Singh, SDO, PSEB, Sub Division, Nathana. There is no material to disbelieve the affidavits of S/Sh. C.D Mittal and Darbara Singh. There is nothing before us on the basis of which it can be said that they had animus or motive to make a false case of theft of electricity against the complainant. Complainant did not muster courage to cross examine them. In these circumstances, their affidavits have gone unchallenged and unrebutted. Official witnesses are as goods witnesses as others. All the acts performed by the public servants in the discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct unless otherwise proved. There is nothing in this case to throw Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 to the waste paper basket. Mere fact that complainant has placed on record two affidavits of the co-villagers to state that there was no checking on 30.1.2008 and there is no person in the name of Darshan Singh in their locality, is no ground to disbelieve Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. It is not the case of the opposite parties that Gora Singh and Gurdas Singh were present at the time of checking. Checking in the case of theft of electricity is conducted all of a sudden. In such a situation, it cannot be expected that all and sundry residing in the village or locality would come to know about it. Hence, no weight can be attached to Ex.C.2 and Ex.C.3. From the evidence led by the opposite parties, conclusion is that checking of the connection of the complainant was conducted on 30.1.2008 by the senior officer of the Board in the presence of some other officials and Darbara Singh and consumer was found indulging in theft of electricity by way of bye-passing the meter. Sanctioned load was 2.480 Kws, whereas connected load was 4.484 Kws. Accordingly, impugned notice of provisional assessment, copy of which is Ex.C.6, through which demand of Rs.42,162/- has been raised as per law/rules and regulations of the Board is quite legal and valid. No deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved.<br /> 9. In view of our forgoing discussion, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 17.6.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member <br /> 'bsg'