DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 308 of 02.11.2007<br /> Decided on : 01-02-2008 <br /> <br /> Hardeep Singh S/o Gurbachan Sigh R/o Chauke, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.S.D.O./A.E.E. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Maur, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. H.S. Akalia, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. M.L. Bansal, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') which has been preferred buy the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to quash the demand of Rs. 17,370; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment besides Rs. 3300/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complaint is that he is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. CK51/0583-L which has been installed at his residence. His bi-monthly average of electricity consumption bill was ranging from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/-. Previously the sanctioned load of his connection was 0.52 K.W. It was got extended to 4.35 KW by way of depositing the requisite amount. Bill dated 7.10.07 for the period from 3.7.07 to 3.9.07 was received by him. It is for Rs. 17,680/-. This amount includes a sum of Rs. 17,370/- which has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances. Bill was payable upto 22.10.07. He assails this bill as illegal, null and void and not binding upon him on the grounds that opposite parties did not give details of the amount of Rs. 17,370/-; it is against the rules and regulations of the Punjab State Electricity Board; no prior notice was issued to him before raising demand of Rs. 17,370/-; no opportunity of hearing much less personal hearing was provided to him before raising the demand; opposite parties have failed to mention the basis or criteria for raising the demand of Rs. 13,370/-; amount cannot be straightway added in the bill and opposite parties were required to issue separate bill for such amount. It is averred by him that criminal case U/s 307 of IPC is pending against Gurtej Singh in which he (complainant) is a witness against him. Baldev Singh brother of Gurtej Singh is posted as XEN in PS.E.B. Lehra Mohabbat. Previously he was posted at Maur Sub Division. Everything is being done at the behest of Gurtej Singh and his brother in order to harass and humiliate him and in order to pressurise him so that he may not give statement against Gurtej Singh. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file it; complainant is not consumer and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, they admit that complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection. Inter-alia their plea is that complainant was found indulging in theft of energy by putting direct wire with the main supply line. His meter was not recording consumption when connection was checked on 12.8.06. Notice No. 1429 dated 22.8.06 raising demand of Rs. 17,370/- for theft of energy was issued. He did not deposit the amount. Bill dated 7.10.07 was rightly issued for Rs. 17,680/- which includes the amount of Rs. 17,370/-. The deny that the bill in question is illegal, arbitrary, null and void and not binding upon the complainant on the grounds mentioned in the complaint. Similarly they deny deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), photocopies of bills (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-6) and photocopy of FIR No. 37 dated 1.4.04 (Ex. C-8).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Sigh, S.D.O./A.E.E.(Ex. R-1), photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-2) and photocopy of demand notice (Ex. R-3) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record. <br /> 7. Copy of the impugned bill dated 7.10.07 is Ex. C-6. A sum of Rs. 17,370/- has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances. Complainant assails this amount as illegal and arbitrary. For this, he has placed on record his affidavit Ex. C-1. Opposite parties are furnishing their explanation for claiming this amount on the grounds that complainant was committing theft of energy when his connection was checked by their officials. In these circumstances, onus is upon them to establish that he was committing theft of electricity. They are relying upon three documents which are Ex. R-1 affidavit of Sh. Ranjit Singh, S.D.O/A.E.E, copy of the checking report Ex. R-2 and Ex. R-3 copy of the Bill-cum-show cause notice dated 22.8.06. Through affidavit Ex. R-1 Sh. Ranjit Singh, does not claim that he had checked the connection of the complainant or he was member of the checking team. Hence Ex. R-1 does not advance the cause of the opposite parties. Opposite parties are not sure on which date connection of the complainant was checked. In para No. 8 of the legal objections in the reply of the complaint checking has been shown to have been done on 17.8.06 whereas in para No. 2 on merits checking is dated 12.8.06. No explanation has been furnished for this contradiction. In the reply of the complaint, names of the officers/officials who had conducted the alleged checking have not been disclosed. Not to speak of this, opposite parties did not muster courage to place and prove on record the affidavit of the Officers/officials who had allegedly checked the connection of the complainant either on 12.8.06 or on 17.8.06. In the absence of any affidavit of the concerned officer/official, allegation of the opposite parties regarding theft of energy does not go beyond the stage of allegation. Neither reply of the complaint nor copy of the checking report reveals that checking was done either in the presence of the complainant or his representative. A perusal of Ex. R-2 shows that checking report does not bear the signature/thumb impression of the complainant or his representative. It is not the case of the opposite parties that consumer or his representative refused to sign it. In these circumstances, there is contravention of Commercial Circulars No. 34/06 read with 53/06. According to these circulars, the inspection report should be signed by authorised officer, all members of the inspection team and consumer/person or his/her representative. Copy of the inspection report is required to be handed over to the consumer or his representative. Incase of refusal, inspection report should be pasted at a conspicuous place in/outside the premises. Simultaneously copy of the inspection report is to be sent to the person under registered post in case of refusal to sign the checking report. Supply of the premises should be disconnected forthwith when theft of electricity is detected. All this has not been done in this case. Opposite parties allege that complainant was committing theft by putting direct wire with the main supply line. Alleged concerned officials who conducted the checking did not think it fit to take the wire into possession. No criminal case was got registered against the complainant. These circumstances also cause serious cloud on the story of the opposite parties regarding theft of electricity. Plea of the opposite parties is that Memo No. 1429 dated 22.8.06 was issued to the complainant and when he did not deposit the amount of Rs. 17,370/- after receiving this notice, the amount has been added in the impugned bill. Copy of the notice dated 1429 is Ex. R-3. There is no evidence to hold that the notice, copy of which is Ex. R-3 was actually served upon the complainant or he refused to receive it. Mere fact that copy of alleged notice No. 1429 has been brought on record does not establish its service upon the complainant. To the contrary, complainant in his affidavit Ex. C-1 has stated in so many words that he did not receive this memo dated 22.8.06 for Rs. 17370/-. Hence stance of the opposite parties that this memo was sent to the complainant and he did not deposit the amount, is unfounded and baseless. When it is so, the amount of Rs. 17,370/- has been added in the impugned bill straightway without affording opportunity to the complainant. This is illegal and against the principles of natural justice as well. Complainant has levelled the allegation that amount has been illegally demanded from him on account of the fact that criminal case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is pending against Gurtej Singh who is the brother of Sh. Baldev Singh who is posted as Executive Engineer at Lehra Mohabbat and that previously he was posted at Maur Mandi, Sub Division. It is further in the affidavit Ex. C-1 that everything is being done at the behest of Sh. Gurtej Singh and his brother Sh. Baldev Singh in order to harass and humiliate him so that he may not give evidence against Sh. Gurtej Singh. Copy of the FIR is Ex. C-8. Since this affidavit has not been got rebutted by the opposite parties with the affidavit of Sh. Baldev Singh, this plea of the complainant alludes inference in favour of the complainant.<br /> 8. In the premises written above, crux of the matter is that demand of Rs. 17,370/- raised by the opposite parties in the bill dated 7.10.07, copy of which is Ex. C-6 by showing it in the column of sundry charges and allowances is certainly illegal, arbitrary, unfounded and baseless. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising it is writ large.<br /> 9. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, demand of Rs. 17,370/- is liable to be set aside as the complainant is not liable to pay this amount. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment. Facts and circumstances of this case warrants some compensation on this aspect of the matter which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> 10. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 11. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Withdraw the demand of Rs. 17,370/- from the complainant shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 7.10.07, copy of which is Ex. C-6.<br /> ii) Pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of its receipt failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act would carry interest @9% P.A. till realisation.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> 01-02-2008 President<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar) Member Member<br /> <br /> <br />