DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 134 of 6.5.2008 Decided on : 14.7.2008 <br /> <br /> Jagroop Singh S/o Sh. Bagha Singh, R/o H. No. 5854, Purana Thana Road, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary.<br /> 2.SDO/AEE, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban Sub Division, Bathinda.<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. Lalit Garg, 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. Complainant is holder of electricity connection bearing A/c No. AP-47/174. Notice/memo No. 402 dated 27.2.2008 was received by him from the opposite parties vide which demand of Rs. 38,650/- has been raised alleging that on 22.2.2008 he was found running electric motor of 5 BHP illegally from the Transformer of one Megh Singh. He assails this demand as illegal, null and void, arbitrary and unjustified on the grounds that he was not committing theft of electricity. He is already having duly sanctioned connection which is being used by him free of cost under the policy of the Punjab Government; opposite parties have failed to give details of the amount of Rs. 38,650/-in the impugned notice; no notice was given before raising the impugned demand; no opportunity of hearing much less personal hearing was provided to him; rules of natural justice have been violated; alleged checking is not binding upon him as it was at his back. He was not present at the spot nor the checking report bears his signatures or the signatures of his representative; no photographs were taken at the spot and no Transformer of Megh Singh exists near his fields. He has undergone mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and humiliation due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, instant complaint has been filed 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 quash the demand of Rs. 38,650/-; pay Rs.10,000/- to him as compensation for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and Rs.3,300/- as costs of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking the legal objections that complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint; it is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has not come with clean hands and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. On merits, they admit that complainant is holder of electricity connection bearing A/c No. AP/47/174 for 5 BHP motor. He was running another motor by getting direct supply from the pole by way of illegally tapping from the pole. He was caught red handed by the Flying Squad. Second motor has been installed by him at a distance of about two acres from the sanctioned connection. Memo has been rightly issued raising the demand of Rs. 38,650/- on the basis of the checking made on 22.2.2008. Complainant did not file any objections against the notice dated 27.2.2008. Complainant is getting electricity from the Transformer of Maghi Singh for the sanctioned connection and from the same pole, he was getting supply for another motor by direct tapping. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Jagroop Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2) and photocopy of Provisional Order of Assessment dated 27.2.2008 (Ex.C.3).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance is placed on the affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Er. Karnail Singh Mann, Executive Engineer, City Division, Bathinda, photocopy of Provisional Order of Assessment dated 27.2.2008 (Ex.R.2) and photocopy of Checking Report dated 22.2.2008 (Ex.R.3). <br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have perused record.<br /> 6. Allegation of the opposite parties is that complainant was using electricity by way of getting unauthorised supply from the pole and was running 5 BHP motor and that he was caught red handed by the Flying Squad on 22.2.2008. As a matter of fact, he was having connection only for one motor of 5 BHP. Infact he was running two motors of 5 BHP each and the second one was being run by way of direct tapping. Onus to prove this allegation is upon the opposite parties. In the reply of the complaint, they have not disclosed the names of the members of the Flying Squad and the name of the officer who was heading it. As is readable from the copy of the checking report Ex.R.3, S/Sh. B.S. Chahal, Baljinder Singh and Jaswinder Singh officials were there. Affidavit of none of them has been brought on record to support the version in the reply of the complaint. There is nothing in the reply of the complaint that Er. K.S Mann was also with the Flying Squad at the time of alleged checking. When it is so, his affidavit Ex.R.1 does not advance the cause of the opposite parties in any manner. Moreover, it stands amply rebutted with the affidavits of the complainant which are Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. Alleged members of the Flying Squad did not deem it fit to take into possession the wire and the electric motor which was allegedly being run unauthorisedly. Site could be got photographed or videographed. This has not been done. As per plea of the opposite parties, complainant was caught red handed by the Flying Squad. If it was so, his signatures could be obtained on the checking report. The evidence to this effect is lacking. Criminal case could be got registered against him. Opposite parties allege the date of checking as 22.2.2008, whereas the Provisional Order of Assessment, copies of which are Ex.R.2 & Ex.C.3, depicts the date of checking as 22.3.2008. In these circumstances, version of the opposite parties that he was using power unauthorisedly from the pole is not substantiated at all. When it is so, the demand of Rs.38,650/- raised through Provisional Order of Assessment, copy of which is Ex.R.2, is certainly illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant. Since amount is being demanded illegally and arbitrarily, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is writ large.<br /> 7. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of the discussion made above, direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw memo, copies of which are Ex.C.3 & Ex.R.2, through which demand of Rs. 38,650/- has been raised. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment to the complainant for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs.1,000/-.<br /> 8. 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 Provisional Order of Assessment, copies of which are Ex.R.2 & Ex.C.3, through which demand of Rs.38,650/- has been raised.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs. 1,000/- 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 amount of compensation would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 9. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 14.7.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member <br /> 'bsg'