DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 254 of 18-09-2009<br /> Decided on : 6-01-2010 <br /> <br /> Hansraj S/o Ghanshyam Dass R/o H. No. 30402 Khalsa Gali No. 4, Paras Ram Nagar, 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, District Bathinda.<br /> 3.A.E.E./S.D.O. Sub Urban Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, counsel the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.P.S. Brar, counsel for the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant approached this Forum with the complaint against the opposite parties that he is holder of domestic electric connection bearing A/c No. RD 42/65 and paying electricity bills regularly. He received Memo No. 603 of dated 28-07-2009 received on 17-08-2009 demanding Rs. 26,374/- mentioning therein that checking of his premises was done on 23-07-2009 and it was found that deep freezer was running and NRS supply was being used. Vide said memo, he was asked to make the aforesaid payment or to file objections within 7 days after receipt of notice. He filed objections challenging the action of the opposite parties, but the same were not considered by them. He assails the aforesaid memo on the grounds that he neither used NRS supply nor used electricity unauthorisedly; he was not provided opportunity of personal hearing nor his objections were perused; checking was not made in his presence nor his signatures were obtained on the checking report; checking report was never sent to him; it is not mentioned in the alleged memo that since when the alleged NRS supply was/is being committed; the name of the checking officer has not been mentioned in the alleged memo and the alleged demand of Rs. 26,374/- has been raised without any basis and against rules. He asserts that he made many requests to the opposite parties to withdraw the memo, but they failed to do so. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to quash the impugned memo and also to pay him Rs. 50,000/- as compensation besides any other additional and alternative relief.<br /> 2. The opposite parties filed joint reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant is not consumer; he has not come before this Forum with clean hands; there is no deficiency in service on their part and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it has been admitted that complainant is holder of domestic electric connection No. RD 42/65. It has been submitted that complainant has been taking undue advantage of the domestic connection as he has been using the connection in question for NRS purposes and by misrepresenting the facts, he has been paying the tariff charges on the basis of DS connection and not for NRS connection. The checking of the premises of the complainant was made by Sh. Ranjit Singh, AEE Enforcement, and other officials of PSEB in the presence of the complainant and he put his signatures voluntarily on the checking report being satisfied with the manner of checking as well as correctness of the checking report. During checking it was found that complainant was running freezer with his domestic connection for NRS purposes. Remaining averments made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the same.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopy of objections Ex. C-2, photocopy of memo Ex. C-3 and photocopies of bills Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6.<br /> 4. In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavits of Er. Amanpreet Singh, SDO, Er. Ranjit Singh, AEE Enforcement, Amanpreet Singh SDO, affidavit of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-4, photocopy of checking report Ex. R-5, photocopy of provisional order of assessment Ex. R-6, photocopy of final order of assessment Ex. R-7, photocopy of T.D.C.O and photocopy of R.C.O. Ex. R-9. <br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.<br /> 6. It is an admitted fact that complainant is holding domestic electric connection bearing A/c No. RD 42/65 and has been paying electricity bills regularly so issued by the opposite parties. He received a memo No. 603 dated 28-07-2009 vide which a demand of Rs. 26,374/- has been raised against him.<br /> 7. The contention of the complainant is that his aforesaid electric connection is domestic one whereas the opposite parties have issued the impugned memo raising demand of Rs. 26,374/- on the basis of NRS tariff. The checking, if any, made by the opposite parties was neither conducted in his presence, nor his signatures were obtained on the checking report nor copy of the checking report was supplied to him. He never used the electricity unauthorisedly.<br /> 8. On the other hand the contention of the opposite parties is that the electric connection of the complainant was checked on 23-07-2009 by Er. Ranjit Singh, AEE Enforcement alongwith other staff of PSEB and during checking it was observed that electric connection has been installed in the premises under DS Category whereas the complainant was using the said connection for NRS purposes as he was using one deep freezer for the purpose of keeping Ice Cream in large quantity for commercial purposes. On the basis of checking report dated 23-07-2009, provisional order of assessment for unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of Electricity Act vide letter memo No. 603 was issued alongwith aforesaid mentioned checking report, but he failed to file objections within time frame as per rules and accordingly final notice Memo No. 809 dated 24-08-2009 was issued to him.<br /> 9. To prove their version, the opposite parties have produced on record affidavit Ex. R-2 of Er. Ranjit Singh, A.E.E Enforcement who conducted the checking of the premises of the complainant. He has categorically stated in his affidavit that he was assisted by Sh. Bhagirath Ram A.A.E. for the purpose of checking and during checking it was found that one deep freezer was being used by the complainant and the said deep freezer was running. It has been also stated that it was admitted by the complainant before the checking party that said deep feezer had been used for keeping the Ice Cream in large quantity. The checking report dated 23-07-2009 was prepared at site in punjabi and the complainant after being satisfied with the manner of checking and after admitting the contents of the checking report put his signatures voluntarily in English on the said checking report. The opposite parties have also proved their version by tendering in evidence affidavits of Er. Amanpreet Singh, SDO/AEE Sub Urban Sub Division, Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-3. The perusal of checking report Ex. R-5 also reveals that during checking, Deep Freezer was found in the premises of the complainant and was working condition and checking report bears the signature of the consumer/his representative.<br /> 10. Er. Amanpreet Singh, S.D.O./AEE Sub Urban, Sub Division, Bathinda, has stated in his affidavit Ex. R-1 that complainant has been running a factory of Ice Cream and NRS electricity connection was installed in the said factory vide A/c No. NRS 42/94 which was disconnected during that period that is why the complainant moved the said Deep Freezer from his above mentioned factory to his residential house. The said factory was being run by Bhubneshwar Kumar son of complainant, who is living jointly in the house of the complainant.<br /> 11. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. In the instant case, the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove his allegations. He has not produced any evidence to prove that his son was not running Ice Cream factory or that Deep Freezer of Ice Cream Factory was not moved to his house or Deep Freezer was not found in his house or that it was not running. He has not pleaded or proved any bias on the part of any of the member of the checking staff against him and hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the checking report. Accordingly, the complainant has failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising demand of Rs. 26,374/- on account of NRS tariff. <br /> 12. In view of the above discussion, the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 06-01-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> *ik Member Member <br /> <br /> <br />