DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 108 of 03.04.2008<br /> Decided on : 11-06-2008 <br /> <br /> Jasvir Singh S/o Sh. Puran Singh R/o Village Jai Singh Wala, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2.SDO/AEE, Suburban Sub Division, Sangat Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, 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 /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. H.S. Akalia, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sunder Gupta, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Complainant through this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') seeks direction from this Forum to the opposite parties for quashing demand of Rs. 59731/- and directing them to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment besides Rs. 3300/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. In nutshell the case of the complainant is that he is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. B15JS490773Y which has been installed at his premises. Average amount of the bi-monthly consumption sent to him was ranging from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/-. In the last week of December, 2007, meter installed in his premises had stopped functioning. Opposite party No. 2 was approached. Request was made to him to replace the same with an accurate meter but it was not acceded to. Memo No. 2318 dated 3.3.08 was received by him from the opposite parties vide which demand of Rs. 59,731/- has been raised alleging that connection was checked on 30.1.08 and he was found committing theft of electricity and using excess load. He assails this memo as illegal, null and void and not binding upon him on the grounds that connection was not checked on 30.1.08 in his presence or in the presence of his representative; checking report does not bear his signatures and its copy was not supplied to him; wire was not recovered at the spot nor site was got photographed ; it (impugned notice) has been issued in mechanical manner; no opportunity of hearing much less personal hearing was provided to him before raising the demand and meter was checked by the officials of the Board but nothing incriminating was ever pointed out by meter reader. Moreover, the meter was already lying stopped on the date of alleged checking as is clear from the bill dated 29.2.08. It recorded the reading for the period 12.12.07 to 6.2.08 as three units i.e. from 3760 to 3763. Despite this, status of the meter was recorded as 'O' and they have failed to mention the basis or criteria of alleged demand. Act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused him mental tension, botheration and harassment. Hence, there is deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 3. Opposite parties in the reply of the complaint filed by them raised legal objections to the effect that complainant has not come with clean hands; complaint is not maintainable in the present form; he has no locus standi and cause of action to file it; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as per Government Notification No. 1/13/01-EB(PR) dated 9.3.06, Commercial Circular No. 53/2006 and Electricity Act, 2003 and complaint is false and frivolous. Once assessing officer assess the amount to be recovered from the connection holder for unauthorised use of energy, such a connection holder may represent and raise objection before Assessing Authority and if dissatisfied with the decision of final order of Assessing Authority, he may prefer an appeal to the appellate authority which as per rules is Sub Divisional Magistrate. They admit that electricity connection in question has been installed at the residential premises of the complainant. His sanctioned load is 0.96 KW. His house was raided on 30.1.08. His connected load was found 6.613 KW at the spot. Raid was held by XEN, Enforcement alongwith Er. Hardev Singh, J.E. Paramjit Singh and A.J.E. Labh Singh. He was indulging in theft of electricity by putting kundi directly in the service cable wire going to the meter. He had installed 3 HP motor on single Phase for irrigating his field . 35 Meters kundi wire was recovered from the spot. After removal of the wire, the same was handed over to Lab Singh, A.J.E. Checking was done in the presence of his (complainant's) real brother who had appended his signatures on the checking report. Memo No. 2318 dated 3.3.08 was served upon the complainant. They deny that demand of Rs. 59,731/- raised through this memo is illegal, null and void and arbitrary on the grounds recorded in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Provisional Order (Ex. C-2), photocopies of bills (Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-6), photocopies of payment receipts (Ex. C-7 and Ex. C-8), another affidavit of complainant (Ex. C-9) and photocopy of Ration Card (Ex. C-10).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties three affidavits of S/Sh. Sukhmander Pal Singh, SDO, Labh Singh, AJE, Kirpal Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer Enforcement (Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3) respectively, photocopy of Provisional Order (Ex. R-4) and photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-5) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite parties.<br /> 7. Mr. Aklia, learned counsel for the complainant argued that impugned demand of Rs. 59,731/- raised through memo copies of which are Ex. C-2 and Ex. R-4 is illegal as checking report copy of which is Ex. R-5 does not bear the signature of the complainant; brother of the complainant has no concern with him or his residential house; no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the complainant; site was not photographed; meter installed in the premises of the complainant was defective since December, 2007 and in the bill dated 29.2.08 for the period 12.12.07 to 6.2.08 consumption was only 3 units i.e. from 3760 to 3763 due to the fact that meter was lying stopped during this period. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavits of the complainant which are Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-9 and copies of the bills which are Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-6 and copy of the Ration Card Ex. C-10.<br /> 8. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that impugned demand raised vide memo in question is quite legal and valid. Brother of the complainant was present at the time of checking. Theft of energy is established with the affidavits of S/Sh. Labh Singh and Kirpal Singh which are Ex. R-2 & Ex. R-3 and copy of the checking report Ex. R-5. Averments in the reply of the complaint are also strengthened with the affidavit of Sh. Sukhmander Pal Singh, S.D.O. which is Ex. R-1.<br /> 9. We have considered the rival arguments.<br /> 10. Opposite parties are alleging that electricity connection of the complainant was checked on 30.1.08 and he was found indulging in theft of electricity by putting kundi directly to the service cable going to the meter installed in his premises and that he had installed 3 BHP motor on single phase to irrigate his field by illegal means. His sanctioned load was 0.96 K.W. whereas connected load was found as 6.613 K.W. Ex. R-5 is the checking report. It stands proved by S/Sh. Kirpal Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer and Labh Singh, A.J.E. with their affidavits Ex. R-3 & Ex. R-2 respectively. Sh. Kirpal Singh has stated in so many words that he alongwith Er Hardev Singh, J.E. Paramjit Singh and A.J.E. Labh Singh had inspected the connection of the complainant in the presence of Veerpal Singh who is brother of the complainant. Their family members were also there. He has further stated about the manner in which theft was being committed at that time as has been referred to above and regarding excess load which was being used. He has gone to the extent of stating that copy of the checking report was supplied to the representative of the complainant at the spot. Likewise is the affidavit of Sh. Labh Singh, A.J.E. 35 meters of kundi wire was recovered from the spot and it was handed over to Sh. Labh Singh. Mere fact that site was not photographed is no ground to disbelieve S/Sh. Kirpal Singh and Labh Singh. Learned counsel for the complainant failed to show us any provision of law, rules and regulations according to which photography in such a case is mandatory in each and every case. Representative of the complainant namely Sh. Veerpal Singh who is his brother was present at the time of checking. Checking report bears his signatures. If Sh. Veerpal Singh is living separately from the complainant, this itself is no ground to conclude that he could not be representative of the complainant. He is closely related to him. There is nothing on the record that his brother is inimical towards him. It is not necessary that consumer must be present in person at the time of checking of his connection. Checking can be done either in his presence or in the presence of his representative or person present. In the case in hand, representative of the complainant Sh. Veerpal Singh who is his brother was present. In this scenario, complainant cannot wriggle out of the situation and say that checking does not bear his signatures and as such, it be thrown into winds. All the official acts performed by the public servants in the discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct. There is not an iota evidence to show that either Sh. Kirpal Singh or Sh. Labh Singh has enmity or motive to make false case against the complainant. On the basis of their official designations, employees of the Board, cannot be dubbed as unreliable persons. True that complainant has alleged that meter installed in his premises was defective. He has not led cogent and convincing evidence to prove it. He has himself produced copies of the bills Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-6 in which the status of the meter has been recorded as 'O' means Okay. When it is so, it does not lie in his mouth that meter was defective and on that account bill dated 29.2.08 for the period from 12.12.07 to 06.02.08 is for 3 units. Rather this supports the plea of the opposite parties that complainant was committing theft of electricity. Contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that since complainant was using the electricity unauthorisedly, consumption of electricity during this period is the lowest. Checking was done during this period i.e. on 30.1.08. Consumption of 3 units in the bill for the period 12.12.07 to 6.2.08 does not advance the cause of the complainant. On its basis neither meter can be said to be defective nor the checking and the impugned notice can be held illegal and arbitrary in the facts and circumstances of this case particularly when no meter challenging fee has been shown to have been deposited by the complainant and it has not been proved that application was given to the opposite parties intimating that meter is defective. 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. Demand of Rs. 59,731/- has been raised in the provisional order of assessment in accordance with law giving the details of the amount under each head. Amount has been rightly calculated. Copy of the checking report was supplied to Sh. Veerpal Singh, brother of the complainant.<br /> 11. Keeping all the above relevant facts, circumstances and the evidence on record in view, we conclude that the demand of Rs. 59,731/- raised through impugned memo copies of which are Ex. C-2 & Ex. R-4 is legal, valid and justified. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising it. Complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> 12. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 11-06-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.PhulinderPreet) <br /> Member<br /> 'iki' <br />