DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.97 of 26.3.2008<br /> Decided on : 22.5.2008 <br /> <br /> Kala Ram S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, R/o Village Dialpura Mirja, District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.SDO/AEE, Sub Division, PSEB, Bhagta Bhai Ka.<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. R.D Goyal, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R. <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. DP-42/638 in the name of the complainant has been installed at his residential premises. He is regularly making payment of the electricity consumption bills issued from time to time. Memo No. 3522 dated 24.12.2007 was received by him from the opposite parties through which demand of Rs. 3,603/- has been raised although no amount was outstanding. Their allegation is that previously memo No. 2933 dated 30.11.2007 was issued. It is added by him that no such memo was received by him on or after 30.11.2007. Enquiries were made from the opposite parties and they disclosed that memo dated 30.11.2007 was issued regarding theft of electricity as he was using direct supply. Checking was done by Sh. Gurnam Singh, J.E on 16.11.2007. He asserts that he was not committing theft on 16.11.2007 by way of putting. It has not been stated in the memos dated 30.11.2007 and 24.12.2007 that since when alleged theft was being committed; wire was not packed in the card board box; his signatures were not obtained; infact no checking was done at the spot much less in his presence or in the presence of his representative and amount of previous bills is ranging from Rs.300/- to Rs.600/- for each bio-monthly. He avers that the demand is illegal, null and void, unjustified as there is no variation in his consumption. The impugned memo does not relate to him as it does not bear his parentage and address. His name is Kala Ram and not Kala Singh. His father's name is Mohan Lal and not Mohan Singh. 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 the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw impugned demand dated 24.12.2007 or quash the same; pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and botheration, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. On merits, they admit that electricity connection of the complainant is domestic. It was checked by Sh. Gurnam Singh, J.E on 16.11.2007 in the presence of the complainant. He (complainant) had refused to sign the checking report. At the time of checking, it was found that after preparing a joint in the main PVC near the meter, he was using electricity directly after laying wire from the joint by way of bye-passing the meter. M&T terminal seal was not with the meter. There were some other joints in the wire above the roof. Consumption of electricity was very low. One Fodder Cutting (Toka machine) of 2 BHP and one submersible motor of one BHP were also found installed. Checking report was prepared. Complainant had refused to sign it. Provisional order of assessment dated 30.11.2007 was sent to the complainant. After considering his reply and providing hearing to him on 15.12.2007 matter was decided and demand of Rs. 3,603/- was raised. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Kala Ram complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2), affidavit (Ex.C.3) of Sh. Parmanand, photocopy of provisional order of assessment dated 30.11.2007 (Ex.C.4) and photocopy of final assessment order dated 24.12.2007(Ex.C.5).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on affidavits (Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2) of S/Sh. Gurnam Singh, J.E and Paramjit Singh, SDO respectively, photocopy of checking report dated 16.11.2007 (Ex.R.3) and copy of Consumption Data (Ex.R.4).<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 6. First material question for determination is as to whether this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint regarding the theft of electricity. The answer to our minds is in the positive in view of the authority BSES Yamuna Power Limited Vs. Neeraj Kumar-2007 CTJ-300 (CP)(SCDRC)in which it has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission, Delhi that Consumer Forums/Commissions have the jurisdiction not only to decide every kind of dispute under the Electricity Act, 2003, but have also the jurisdiction to decide any question of law arising from the provisions of this Act including the dispute Under Section 135 relating to allegations of theft of electricity and dishonest abstraction of energy. <br /> 7. Opposite parties are alleging theft of electricity. In such a case heavy onus lies upon the them to prove it. Theft is to be proved like a criminal charge. It cannot be said to have been established on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. To prove it, there is bald affidavit of Sh. Gurnam Singh, J.E which stands amply rebutted with the affidavits of the complainant and Parmanand. Neither in the reply of the complaint nor in the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Gurnam Singh it has been explained that complainant is also known as Kala Singh and his father is also known as Mohan Lal @ Mohan Singh. As per version in the complaint, complainant is Kala Ram S/o Sh. Mohan Lal. He reiterates it in his affidavit Ex.C.1. In the checking report Ex.R.3. Address of the consumer has been shown as Kala Singh S/o Mohan Lal. Similar address has been recorded in the provisional order of assessment. In the final order of assessment, address of the consumer has been given as Kala Singh S/o Mohan Singh. In these circumstances, plea of Gurnam Singh that complainant was present as consumer at the time of inspection becomes a doubtful affair. It cannot be said with certainty that complainant was certainly present at that time. Moreover, the presence of the complainant at the time of alleged checking stands denied by him in his affidavit Ex.C.2 and in the affidavit Ex.C.3 of Parmanand. If complainant was committing theft of energy, site could be got photographed or videographed. This has not been done. Wire with which he was allegedly committing theft by way of making a joint in the PVC has not been taken into possession. Checking report does not bear the signatures of the complainant. In the case of Charan Singh Vs. PSEB (Chairman) & another-JRC- 2006(1)JRC-206, PVC wire which was allegedly being used for bye-passing the meter was not taken into possession. Report was not signed by the complainant. Demand raised by the Board was quashed by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab. From another angle as well, story of theft brought forth by the opposite parties is belied. PSEB has issued Commercial Circular No. 53/2006. Its provisions are mandatory. In case, Sh. Gurnam Singh had found the complainant committing theft of electricity, he could disconnect the supply to the premises of the complainant forthwith. Similarly, he could seal the meter/metering equipment in as found conditions. He was further required to affix the copy of the checking report in/outside the premises of the complainant. Simultaneously, he was to send the copy of the checking report to the complainant under registered post if he had refused to sign the checking report. All this has not been done. From this, adverse inference is that either theft of electricity was not being committed or there is something else which has been concealed from this Forum.<br /> 8. Opposite parties are alleging that provisional order of assessment dated 30.11.2007 copy of which is Ex.C.4 was issued to the complainant and he had submitted reply of the same which was considered and thereafter, final order of assessment copy of which is Ex.C.5 was passed. It is not known through which mode provisional order of assessment dated 30.11.2007 was issued to the complainant. No receipt regarding its receipt by the complainant has been placed and proved on the record. In case, he had submitted objections to the provisional order of assessment, opposite parties could place them on record to substantiate their version. Hence, we are constrained to remark that this stance taken by the opposite parties is unfounded and baseless and he has been condemned unheard and as such, impugned order is against the principles of natural justice as well.<br /> 9. In the premises written above, conclusion is that impugned memo dated 24.12.2007 copy of which is Ex.C.5 is illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. Hence, it is liable to be set-aside. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising the demand of Rs.3,603/- is proved.<br /> 10. Now question is as to which relief should be accorded. Direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw demand of Rs. 3,603/- raised through memo dated 24.12.2007 copy of which is Ex.C.5. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused him mental tension, harassment and botheration for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs.500/-. <br /> 11. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 12. 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 the demand of Rs.3,603/- raised through memo No. 3522 dated 24.12.2007 copy of which is Ex.C.5.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs.500/- 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 copy of this order, failing which the amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 13. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 22.05.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member