BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> Complaint No.34 of 2008<br /> Date of Institution:04.04.2008<br /> Date of Service:28.04.2008<br /> Date of Decision:11.09.2008<br /> <br /> Nirmal Singh (aged 45 years) son of Lachhman Singh resident of Demru, Tehsil Bagha Purana, District Moga.<br /> Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2. Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bagha Purana, Distt.Moga.<br /> 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bagha Purana, Distt.Moga.<br /> <br /> Opposite parties. <br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member<br /> Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member<br /> <br /> Present: Smt.Gurpreet Kaur, Adv.counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.S.K.Dhir, Adv.counsel for the OPs.<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Nirmal Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary and others-opposite parties (herein-after referred to as ‘Board’) directing them to quash the illegal demand of Rs.20110/- raised vide bill dated 26.1.2008 and also to pay Rs.20000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment beside costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Nirmal Singh complainant is a ‘consumer’ of the OPs-Board having domestic electric connection bearing account no.DM78/0074 installed at his residential premises having sanctioned load of 0.36 KW. That the complainant has been paying the consumption charges regularly and nothing is due against him. That all of a sudden, he received a bill dated 26.1.2008 in which the OPs-Board demanded Rs.20110/- on account of theft of energy. That the said demand is altogether illegal, unjust, void at law and against the rules and regulations of the PSEB. That the complainant never committed any theft of energy. That on the receipt of said illegal demand raised by the OPs-Board, the complainant issued a legal notice through his advocate, but to no effect. Thereafter, the complainant approached the office of OPs-Board time and again and requested to withdraw the impugned amount, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OPs-Board had caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to him for which he has claimed Rs.20000/- as compensation beside costs of the litigation. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs-Board, who appeared through Sh.S.K.Dhir Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board. On merits, it was averred that in fact on 12.7.2007, Sh.Lakhwinder Singh Junior Engineer during his checking, found the complainant running a 5 BHP motor by connecting the same directly from the common pole of 64 KV transformer called ‘Malkiat Singh Wala’ attached with 11 KV rural feeder of Lande village. Thus, it was a red handed case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, provisional notice no.1540 dated 18.7.2007 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.6605/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 on account of theft of energy. Again on 31.7.2007, Sh.Charanjit Singh Maan, SDO of the OPs-Board checked the premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by running a 5 BHP motor illegally and found it a case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, another provisional notice no.1645 dated 2.8.2007 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.13210/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 on account of theft of energy. That on both the occasions, the complainant was present at the spot and though he received the copies of the checking reports, but refused to sign the same. That due to non payment of the amount of both the notices, the impugned demand total amounting to Rs.20110/- was added in the consumption bill of the complainant dated 26.1.2008 to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence, it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, affidavit Ex.A3 of Jhirmal Singh. Affidavit Ex.A4 of Paramjit Singh, affidavit Ex.A5 of Avtar Singh, bills Ex.A6 to Ex.A12, receipts Ex.A13 to Ex.A14, copy of legal notice Ex.A15 and closed his evidence.<br /> 5. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs-Board tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Damanjit Singh Toor Sr.XEN, affidavit Ex.R2 of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh JE, affidavit Ex.R3 of Charanjit Singh Maan SDO, copy of checking report Ex.R4, copy of notice Ex.R5, copy of checking report Ex.R6, copy of notice Ex.R7, copy of sundry register Ex.R8, copy of reply to notice Ex.R9, copy of postal receipt Ex.R10 and closed their evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard the arguments of Smt.Gupreet Kaur ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.S.K.Dhir ld. counsel for the OPs-Board and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 7. Smt.Gurpeet Kaur ld. counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the impugned demand of Rs.20110/- raised vide consumption bill dated 26.1.2008 from the complainant is illegal and unlawful because the complainant had never indulged in theft of energy. <br /> 8. On the other hand, Sh.S.K.Dhir ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has mainly argued that in fact on 12.7.2007, Sh.Lakhwinder Singh Junior Engineer during his checking found the complainant running a 5 BHP motor by connecting the same directly from the common pole of 64 KV transformer called ‘Malkiat Singh Wala’ attached with 11 KV rural feeder of Lande village and declared it a red handed case of ‘theft of energy’. Thereafter, provisional notice no.1540 dated 18.7.2007 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.6605/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 on account of theft of energy. Again on 31.7.2007, Sh.Charanjit Singh Maan, SDO of the OPs-Board checked the premises of the complainant and found him stealing the electricity by running a 5 BHP motor illegally and found it a case of theft of energy. Thereafter, another provisional notice no.1645 dated 2.8.2007 was issued to the complainant demanding Rs.13210/- under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 on account of theft of energy. That on both the occasions, the complainant was present at the spot and though he received the copies of the checking reports, but refused to sign the same. That due to non payment of the amount of both the notices, the impugned demand total amounting to Rs.20110/- was added in the consumption bill of the complainant dated 26.1.2008 to which the OPs-Board is legally entitled to recover. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OPs-Board has full force. Admittedly, on 12.7.2007 and 31.7.2007 the premise of the complainant was checked by Sh.Lakhwinder Singh JE and Sh.Charanjit Singh Maan, SDO respectively in the presence of the complainant who found him committing the theft of energy in the aforesaid manners. The checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant but he refused to sign the checking reports. Thereafter, provisional notice no. 1540 dated 18.7.2007 and further provisional notice no. 1645 dated 2.8.2007 were issued to the complainant demanding Rs.6605/- and 13210/- respectively under section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 on account of theft of energy. In the instant case, the OPs-Board had issued the notices of provisional assessment for unauthorized use of electricity in exercise of power under section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 asking the complainant to give its reply within 7 days. But the complainant has failed to file any reply against the same. Thus, the said notices have become the final order.<br /> 9. Moreover, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint because the only remedy available to the complainant is to file an appeal under section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 before the Appellant Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner/ Addl. Deputy Commissioner or Sub Divisional Magistrate as the case may be, against the orders of the Assessing Officer made under section 126 of the said Act. Hence, in view of the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 and circulars of the PSEB, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint on the allegations that the complainant was found committing theft of energy in aforesaid manners. <br /> 10. Furthermore, the charge of theft has been proved from the checking reports Ex.R4 and Ex.R6. To further corroborate it, the OPs-Board have produced affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Damanjit Singh Toor Sr.XEN, affidavit Ex.R2 of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh JE checking officer, affidavit Ex.R3 of Charanjit Singh Maan SDO checking officer, copy of notice Ex.R5, copy of notice Ex.R7, copy of sundry register Ex.R8, copy of reply to notice Ex.R9 and copy of postal receipt Ex.R10.<br /> 11. On the other hand, the complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he was not stealing the electricity except his own affidavits Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. There is no corroboration to his affidavit that he was not stealing the electricity by illegal means. Moreover, he has reason to give false affidavits in order to save himself from the consequences of being caught red handed while stealing the electricity by illegal means. Thus, no reliance could be placed on the affidavits Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 of the complainant and we discard the same.<br /> 12. Further, the checking party had acted in accordance with rules and regulations issued by PSEB from time to time and in discharge of their official duties. They were supposed to do all their acts bonafidely and in good faith and without any malice or motive. The complainant has not alleged any ill-will or animus against them. They have no reason to make a wrong report against him. In view of these circumstances, we hold that on 12.7.2007 and 31.07.2007 the complainant was found stealing the electricity by aforesaid illegal means. Thus, the impugned demand of Rs.20110/- made from the complainant on account of theft of energy by the OPs-Board was quite legal and valid and as per rules and instructions of the PSEB. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove if there was any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs-Board. <br /> 13. The ld.counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order shall be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member Member President<br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:11.09.2008.<br /> <br /> hrg*<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />