DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 258 of 24-09-2009<br /> Decided on : 07-01-2010 <br /> <br /> Harbans Singh S/o Sh. Sat Pal Singh R/o Khalsa Gali No. 4, Paras Ram Nagar, Near Bridge, 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. 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. Gourav Aggarwal, counsel for the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is holder of domestic electric connection bearing A/c No. RD/42/85 and is paying the electricity bills regularly, so issued by the opposite parties. All of a sudden, he received memo No. Nil of dated 18-08-2009 on 27-08-2009 raising demand of Rs. 8659/- on the basis of theft. It has been mentioned in the said memo that checking was conduct on 16-07-2009 and during checking, it was found that consumer was using supply by putting wire directly from meter and it was attached with outgoing side of the kit-kat and kit-kat was found removed. He was advised to make the payment of Rs. 8659/- or to file objection within 7 days after receipt of notice. He filed objections against the memo in which he challenged the action of the opposite parties. He asserts that the said memo is illegal and against the rules of PSEB and and same is liable to be set aside or quashed on the grounds that he never committed any theft of electricity; he was not provided opportunity of personal hearing; meter was not removed or packed in card board box nor his signatures were obtained by the opposite parties; copy of checking report was not supplied to him; name of checking officer has not been mentioned in the checking memo; no evidence of theft was collected at spot and the impugned memo is illegal and invalid. He made repeated requests to the opposite parties to withdraw the said memo, but to no effect. 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 in addition to any other additional and alternative relief.<br /> 2. The opposite parties filed joint reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; it has been filed with ill motive to extort money;complainant has concealed material facts; he has failed to file objections within 7 days and memo of provisional assessment is legal and valid. On merits, it has been admitted that complainant is holder of domestic electric connection No. RD/42/85 and provisional assessment raising demand of Rs. 8659/- has been issued by them. It has been submitted that complainant has committed theft of electricity. Checking report dated 16-07-2009 of the Meter Inspector Sh. Janak Singh and AJE Shri Parminder Singh clearly reveals commission of electricity theft and unathorised use of electricity by the complainant. Father of the complainant refused to receive the checking report dated 16-07-2009. Yellow wire which is 10” long through which electricity theft was committed was taken by the opposite parties in their possession on 16-07-2009 i.e. the date of checking/inspection. The snaps have been done by them which prove that theft was committed by the complainant as per memo dated 18-08-2009 and checking report dated 16-07-2009.<br /> It has been stated that opposite parties did pursue the objections filed by the complainant rather it is the complainant himself who failed to appear before them and preferred to file objections through registered post. It has been pleaded that final assessment has been made by the opposite parties on 30-09-2009 and the Memo No. 1022 dated 30-09-2009 of final assessment was received by Anita Aneja on 30-09-2009 at the complainant's house. The complainant even did not wait for final assessment as he filed the complaint on 24-09-2009.<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 postal receipt Ex. C-3, another affidavit of complainant Ex. C-5 and affidavit of Sh. Barnam Aora Ex. C-6.<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Ajay Saxena, Additional SDO Ex. R-1, affidavit of Sh. Janak Singh, Meter Inspector Ex. R-2, another affidavit of Sh.Ajay Saxena, SDO Ex. R-3, photocopy of checking report Ex. R-4, photocopy of provisional notice Ex. R-5, photocopy of final notice of assessment Ex. R-6 and photographs Ex. R-7 to Ex. R-8.<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record of the case.<br /> 6. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that no checking was made by the opposite parties in the premises of the complainant and the impugned memo is illegal. He urged that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the complainant after service of provisional order of assessment. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the documents i.e. photocopy of objections and its postal receipt Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3 and affidavit of Barnam Arora Ex. C-6.<br /> 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of PSEB on 16-07-2009 and he was found committing theft of energy. Checking report Ex. R-4 was prepared at site but the father of the complainant refused to sign it. As per checking report, provisional order of assessment dated 18-08-09 Ex. R-5 was issued which was received by Sh. Satpal, father of the complainant who has signed copy of it in token of receipt. The complainant was asked either to deposit the demanded amount or to appear personally to file objections within seven days from the receipt of notice. The complainant did not appear before the opposite parties and preferred to send his objection by post which was not received within the prescribed period . Thereafter final assessment order was issued to the complainant. He urged that the demand raised by the opposite parties is legal and valid.<br /> 8. We have perused the record. Sh. Janak Singh, Meter Inspector in his affidavit Ex. R-2 have clearly stated that he alongwith AJE Sh. Parminder Singh on 16-07-2009 conducted checking of the electric connection of the complainant and during checking it was found that complainant was using supply by putting wire directly coming from meter and it was attached with the outgoing side of the Kit Kat and Kit Kat was found removed. On the meter, there were no MCB and MTC seals. The disk of the meter was still but there was consumption of electricity in the house. The theft was being committed with the help of 10 Yellow colour wire and the wire was taken by him in his possession. Affidavit R-1 of Sh. Ajay Saxena, Additional S.D.O also support the version of Janak Singh, Meter Inspector.<br /> 9. Ex. R-4 is the copy of checking report which reveals that connection of the complainant was checked on 16-07-2009 and during checking it was found that disk of the meter was stopped whereas the electricity supply was running in the house. Consumer was using supply by putting wire directly coming from meter and it was attached with the outgoing side of the Kit-Kat and Kit Kat was found removed. The mode of theft was also shown by drawing sketch on the checking report and it has also been mentioned on the checking report that at the time of checking, Satpal (father of the complainant) was present but he refused to sign the checking report. Ex. R-7 & Ex. R-8 are the photographs which clearly show the mode of theft. All the official acts performed by the public servants in discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct unless otherwise it is proved. <br /> 10. On the basis of checking report, provisional order of assessment was served upon the complainant. So far as opportunity of being heard is concerned, it has been given in the impugned memo itself. It is a different question that he has availed it or not.<br /> 11. The complainant in para 5 of his affidavit Ex. C-5 has stated that Sat Pal is not the father nor the relative as alleged and the alleged checking report dated 16-07-2009 never issued to him whereas on the head note of his complaint, he has himself mentioned Harbans Singh S/o Sat Pal. Thus, he cannot deny the checking and receipt of the checking report.<br /> 12. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence brought on record by the parties, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this 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 and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 07-01-2010 <br /> (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member<br /> *ik