DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> <br /> C.C.No.343 of 4.12.2007<br /> Decided on : 22.2.2008 <br /> <br /> Hargobind Singh S/o Chand Singh, R/o Village Bath, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Elecy. Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.The Senior Executive Engineer, Division, Punjab State Elecy. Board, Bhagta Bhai Ka, Distt. Bathinda.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Abhai Khangwal, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, Advocate<br /> O R D E R.<br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Complainant is running Atta Chakki for the purpose of earning his livelihood and the livelihood of his family. Electricity connection bearing A/c No. SP-12 has been installed at his premises in village Bath. He was paying electricity consumption bills regularly. Letter/memo No. 5522 dated 16.11.2007 was issued to him by the opposite parties alleging that his connection was checked by Mr. Jasvir Singh, Engineer and he was found committing theft of electricity by way of getting direct supply by removing the grips. Demand of Rs. 67,143/- has been raised from him. He (complainant) assails this demand as illegal, against facts and without any basis on the grounds that he was not indulging in theft of electricity; no proper, legal and valid checking was done; no photographs were taken; no fuse wires and grips were taken into possession. He has got no technical knowledge or any other knowledge regarding electricity. Opposite parties were approached to withdraw the notice, but to no effect. In these circumstances, he has preferred this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw aforesaid letter/memo; issue revised bill as per actual consumption and pay Rs. 30,000/- as damages, besides costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file it; complainant has not come with clean hands; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; dispute pertaining to theft should be decided by the court of SDM/ADC; complaint is false and frivolous and complainant is not consumer. Inter-alia, their plea is that electricity connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the Punjab State Electricity Board on 13.11.2007. Complainant was consuming electricity by way of by-passing the meter by way of breaking the main wire which goes to the meter. Meter was got stopped by removing the fuse wires from the grips and electricity was being consumed through unauthorised means. Checking Squad had made the report. Bhola Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh representative of the complainant was present. Checking report was signed by him after admitting it as correct. Notice/ provisional order of assessment was issued to the complainant raising the demand of Rs. 67,143/-. He was asked to deposit this amount within seven days, but he did not file any objection and as such, order has become final. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Hargobind Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2), photocopy of Provisional Order of Assessment dated 16.11.2007 (Ex.C.3) and photocopy of payment receipt (Ex.C.4).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been paced on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Jasvir Singh, photocopy of checking report dated 13.11.2007 (Ex.R.2) and photocopy of Provisional Order of Assessment dated 16.11.2007 (Ex.R.3).<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered written arguments submitted by the opposite parties.<br /> 6. Demand of Rs. 67,143/- raised by the opposite parties through memo No 5522 dated 16.11.2007, copies of which are Ex.C.3 & Ex.R.3, has been assailed by the complainant on the ground that no checking was conducted nor was he indulging in theft of energy by way of getting direct supply from the supply line. Contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that complainant was not present at the spot and that site was not photographed nor wire was taken into possession. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavits Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 of the complainant.<br /> 7. To the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that complainant was found committing theft of electricity by Mr. Jasvir Singh, SDO/Engineer in the presence of the representative of the complainant.<br /> 8. After considering respective arguments, we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. So far as the affidavits of the complainant are concerned, they are self serving documents. They stand amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Jasvir Singh, SDO. He (Jasvir Singh) has supported the version of the opposite parties on all material particulars. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to show that he has animus or motive to make a false case of theft of electricity against the complainant. Whatsoever has been done by him has been done in the capacity of public servant. All the official acts performed by the public servants in the discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct unless otherwise proved. There is nothing to throw away the affidavit Ex.R.1 to the waste paper basket. It is not a case where representative of the complainant was not present at the spot. Sh. Bhola Singh was present. Complainant has not disowned him by way of taking the plea that he has no relation or connection with him. It being so, the checking is in accordance with Commercial Circular No. 53/2006. When checking was done by Sh. Jasvir Singh in the presence of representative of the complainant and the checking report, copy of which is Ex.R.2, has been duly signed by him (Bhola Singh), mere fact that site was not photographed or wire was not taken into possession would assume no significance. In these circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that he was not indulging in theft of electricity in the manner averred by the opposite parties. Not to speak of this, another circumstance also goes against the complainant. Opposite parties have sent impugned notice to the complainant apprising him that he may submit objections to it within seven days. Despite this, he did not deem it fit to file objections against the demand raised by opposite parties showing that he was not committing theft of electricity or Bhola Singh was not his representative on 13.11.2007. From this, adverse inference is drawn against the complainant and in favour of the plea of the opposite parties. Learned counsel for the complainant could not bring to our notice that the demand raised by the opposite parties is not as per Commercial Circular referred to above. Accordingly, conclusion is that complainant has failed to establish that demand raised through impugned memo is illegal, null and void and not binding upon him. When it is so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising it.<br /> 9. In the result, complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> 22.02.2008 President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />