DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 58 of 22.02.2008<br /> Decided on : 13-05-2008 <br /> <br /> Krishan Chand S/o Ruldas Ram, R/o Ward No. 13, Near Om Parkash Bachni Devi Sarav Hitkari School, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2.The SDO Punjab State Electricity Board, City 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 /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Bharti, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J. D Nayyar, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Electricity connection bearing A/c No. B-51Rm270457G is in the name of Smt. Dia Wanti wife of the complainant and she has since died. Complainant being her husband and one of the legal heirs is paying all the bills issued by the opposite parties. He has set up a unit for preparing Boxes of speakers and this unit is running with the electricity supplied under this connection. This work is only source of his livelihood. His family has no other source of income. Bill No. 91554 dated 22.01.08 was issued by the opposite parties for Rs. 38,970/- payable by due date. Amount payable after due date is Rs. 42,712/-. This amount includes the charges for 37 units. A sum of Rs. 38,970/- has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances without disclosing its details. He assails this demand of Rs. 38,970/- as illegal, null and void. Opposite parties were requested to disclose the nature and details of the sundry charges but to no effect. Opposite parties did not withdraw the demand nor did they issue revised bill. He alleges deficiency in service. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw the bill; issue revised bill as per actual consumption; pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages and cost of the litigation.<br /> 2. 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; he has not approached this Forum with clean hands; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the dispute pertaining to theft of energy can be decided by Sub Divisional Magistrate/Additional Deputy Commissioner; complaint is false and frivolous and complainant is not consumer. Inter-alia their plea is that connection was checked by their officials on 29.8.07. On checking it was found that glass of the meter was tampered with. Connection holder by putting direct wire from the main joint by switching off the main switch and after taking out grips was consuming electricity by way of bye passing the meter. It was a case of theft of energy. Checking report was prepared. Representative of the connection holder Krishan Chand, complainant was present at the spot and he had signed it after admitting it as correct. Provisional Order of assessment for unauthorised use of electricity for Rs. 36,742/- was issued. Complainant did not raise any objection within the prescribed period and as such, assessment has become final. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Death Certificate of Smt. Dia Wanti (Ex. C-2), photocopy of bill (Ex. C-3), photocopy of payment receipts (Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6), photocopy of Provisional Order (Ex. C-7), photocopy of checking report (Ex. C-8) and affidavit of Sh. Krishan Chand (Ex. C-9). <br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Surjit Singh Sidhu, SDO, Operation Sub Division, Maur City (Ex. R-1), photocopy of Provisional Order (Ex. R-2), photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-3) and photocopy of register (one page) (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. 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 /> 6. Since opposite parties are alleging that connection holder was committing theft of electricity, onus is upon them to prove it. Theft is required to be proved like a criminal charge. There should be cogent and convincing evidence to establish it. It cannot be presumed on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Opposite parties are relying upon the affidavit of Sh. Surjit Singh, AEE/S.D.O. Operation Sub Division, P.S.E.B. Maur City. They have not explained in the reply of the complaint the name of the person who was heading the checking party and what was his designation. Similarly, it is not known who were the other officials who were accompanying that officer. Sh. Surjit Singh in his affidavit Ex. R-1 does not state at all that checking was done by him or he was the member of the checking party on 29.8.07. It being so, opposite parties cannot drive any benefit from the affidavit Ex. R-1. Material evidence which the opposite parties could lead could be in the form of the affidavit of the officer/officials who was heading the checking party or the affidavits of the other officer who were members of the checking team. Evidence to this effect is lacking. From this, adverse inference is drawn against the opposite parties to the effect that either story of the checking of the connection in question on 29.8.07 is a concocted one or there is something else which has been kept back from this Forum. Complainant has not admitted in so many words that the checking report dated 29.8.07 copy of which Ex. R-3 bears his signatures. Opposite parties did not muster courage to get compared the signatures of the complainant with the signatures of the checking report. To the naked eye, the signatures of the complainant on the checking report copy of which is Ex. R-3 do not tally with the signatures on the complaint and affidavit Ex. C-1. If complainant was committing theft of energy, officials of the opposite parties could take the wire into possession. This has not been done. For this, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, in the case of Charan Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (Chairman) and another 2006(1) JRC 206. In that case PVC wire which was being used for bye passing the meter was not taken into possession by checking party. Demand notice was quashed. <br /> 7. There is non-compliance of Commercial Circular No. 53/2006 as well. In case theft of electricity is established, supply of the premises was to be disconnected forthwith. It is mandatory as per this Commercial Circular. Moreover, meter/metering equipment was to be sealed in as found condition. Since it has not been done, adverse inference is drawn against the opposite parties that theft was not being committed failing which concerned officials would not have contravened this Commercial Circular. Mere fact that complainant did not prefer objections against provisional order of assessment copy of which is Ex. R-3 is no ground to accept the version of the opposite parties particularly when ample evidence is on the record to prove that theft of electricity has not been proved by them by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant alleges that opposite parties have not disclosed the amount of sundry charges in the impugned bill, copy of which is Ex. C-3. As per copy of the impugned bill Ex.C-3, complainant consumed 37 units only. Hence he is not liable to pay more amount than is legally permissible for this consumption. Hence provisional order of assessment and bill in question are illegal and arbitrary. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 8. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned bill and revise the bill for consumption of 37 units. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused him mental tension, agony, bothration and harassment for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> 9. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 10. 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 bill dated 22.1.08, copy of which is Ex. C-3.<br /> ii) Issue revised bill for permissible amount for consumption of 37 units shown in Ex. C-3.<br /> iii) Pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant 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 /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be also consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 13-05-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />