DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No.355 of 20-12-2007<br /> Decided on : 29-02-2008 <br /> <br /> Raghvir Singh S/o Sh. Kaur Singh R/o H. No. 3133, Backside Bus Stand, Civil Lines, Bathinda. <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, Civil Lines, Sub Division, Bathinda. <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Lakhbir singh, President<br /> Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. B.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Rajneesh Rampal, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. Electricity connection bearing A/c No. KN32/0032-F has been installed in Aulakh Hotel in the name of father of the complainant who has since died in the year 1992-93. It was got installed for earning his livelihood and the livelihood of his family. After his death, complainant is using this electricity connection and is paying the electricity consumption bills regularly. On 3.12.07, bill was received for the period 10.9.07 to 10.11.07 through which a demand of Rs. 17,660/- has been raised which includes a sum of Rs. 9133/- showing in the column of sundry charges and allowances. He assails this demand of Rs. 9133/- as illegal, null and void, unjustified and not binding upon him on the grounds that opposite parties have failed to give the details thereof; no notice was given to him before raising this demand; no personal hearing was provided; no basis or criteria for claiming this amount has been given and as per rules and regulations of P.S.E.B straightway amount cannot be added in the bill. Opposite party were approached many a times with the request to disclose the details of the amount, but to no effect. 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 quash the demand of Rs. 9133/-; pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and Rs. 3300/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainant is not consumer; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to decide this complaint; complainant has not come with clean hands; he is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct and complaint is false and frivolous. They admit that connection is in the name of the father of the complainant. After his death, complainant did not move any application for getting it transferred in his name. Bill for Rs. 17660/- was issued. This amount includes Rs. 9133/- shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances. Connection was checked on 29.1.05 in the presence of the representative of the connection holder. Report was made that meter be changed and electronic meter be installed in its place. Connected load was found 4.386 KW against the sanctioned load of 1 K.W. In this manner, connection holder was found using excess load. On the basis of checking report, Memo No. 302 dated 2.2.05 was issued to the connection holder for depositing 8340/- for excess load. That amount was deposited. Meter Change Order dated 18.2.05 was issued. On its basis, meter was changed with electronic meter. Old meter removed from the premises was taken by the official of the Board as per rules and regulations. It was sent to M.E. Laboratory for checking and was duly checked. It was found that body of the meter was tampered and it is a case of theft of electricity. Audit party audited the account of the connection holder and directed to recover a sum of Rs. 9133/- from the complainant on account of theft of electricity. Accordingly amount has been added in the bill. They deny that demand is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the complainant.<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 Kaur Singh (Ex. C-2), affidavit of Sh. Bikram Singh (Ex. C-3), affidavit of Sh. Prem Kumar (Ex. C-4), affidavit of Sh. Inderjit (Ex. C-5), bill dated 3.12.07 (Ex. C-6) and photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. C-7).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Rahul Kansal, A.E. (Ex. R-1), photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-2), photocopy of Notice dated 2.2.05 (Ex. R-3), photocopy of M.C.O. (Ex. R-4), photocopy of M.E. Challan Book (Ex. R-5) and photocopy of audit report (Ex. R-6) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant.<br /> 6. Opposite parties allege that complainant is not consumer as the connection is standing in the name of his father. Moreover, connection is being used for commercial purposes i.e. hotel purposes. These contentions of the opposite parties are not tenable in this case. Admittedly connection is in the name of Kaur Singh who was the father of the complainant. He has since died as is evident from the affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-3. Complainant is using the electricity being his son. Hence, he is beneficiary of services availed by his father. He is paying the electricity consumption charges. In these circumstances, he is consumer. Opposite parties have not led any evidence that business in the premises where connection has been installed is being done at large scale. To the contrary, there are affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-3 according to which father of the complainant had got installed connection and it was being used by him for earning his livelihood and the livelihood of his family. Complainant has stepped into his shoes. There is is no evidence that Hotel was being run by the father of the complainant and thereafter by the complainant by way of employing several other persons. When services were availed exclusively for the purpose of earning livelihood by self-employment by the father of the complainant and after him they are being availed by the complainant for this purpose, he is consumer being beneficiary. <br /> 7. Ex. C-6 is the impugned bill in which a sum of Rs. 9133/- has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances. This amount is the bone of contention. Complainant assails this demand of Rs. 9133/- as illegal. For this, his affidavit is Ex. C-1 in which he reiterates his version in the complaint. Complainant has also brought on record affidavits of S/Sh. Bikram Singh, Prem Kumar and Inderjit Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-5 respectively, according to which connection of the complainant was not checked.<br /> 8. Stance of the opposite parties is that connection of the complainant was checked on 29.1.05 in the presence of the representative of the connection holder. Connection holder was found using load of 4.386 K.W. against sanctioned load of 1 K.W. On the basis of checking report, Memo No. 302 dated 2.2.05 was issued to the connection holder raising demand of Rs. 8340/- which was deposited for use of excess load. Copies of the checking report dated 29.1.05 and the notice dated 2.2.05 are Ex. R-2 & Ex. R-3 respectively. They further allege that meter installed in the premises of the connection holder was ordered to be changed. Accordingly M.C.O. dated 18.2.05 was issued copy of which is Ex. R-4. It was affected on 14.3.05. Old meter was removed and in its place electronic meter was installed. Thereafter removed meter was sent to M.E. Laboratory for checking. It was duly checked by the officials and meter body was found tampered. It was found to be case of theft of electricity. For that they are relying upon copy of the M.E. Challan Book Ex. R-5. Since the opposite parties are levelling allegation of theft of energy, onus is upon them to prove it. For that, they have placed on record affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Rahul Kansal. It does not advance their cause. It is not known who was the officer/official who had checked the connection on 29.1.05. Affidavits of the officers/officials who allegedly conducted the checking are not on the record. Even their names have not been disclosed in the reply of the complaint as well as in the affidavit Ex. R-1. Similarly it is not known who had affected the Meter Change Order dated 18.2.05 on 14.3.05 Affidavit of concerned officer/official has not been proved to show that previous meter installed was removed as per rules and regulations. Similarly affidavit of the official who took the removed meter in this case to M.E. Laboratory is not on the file. It is not known as to what was the condition of the removed meter when it was installed in the premises of the connection holder. There is no evidence about the fact as to who was/were officer/officers who had checked the removed meter in the M.E. Laboratory and found it tampered. They have neither been examined before this Forum nor their affidavits are on the record. Opposite parties are simply relying upon the copy of the M.E. Challan Book on which meter has been recorded as tampered. It is not known who has written the word tampered on the M.E. Challan Book. No notice before checking the meter in the M.E. Laboratory has been shown to have been issued to the complainant/connection holder or his beneficiary. No-one can be condemned unheard. No reason has been assigned as to why no notice was sent to the complainant or his beneficiary for checking the meter in M.E. Laboratory in his presence. Not to speak of this, even the copy of the M.E. Laboratory report is not on the record to show that the removed meter was checked and it was found tampered. Nature of the tampering of meter is not known. In these circumstances, there is contravention of the commercial circulars regarding the checking of the meters in the M.E. Laboratory which have been issued by the Punjab State Electricity Board. When it is so, opposite parties cannot claim the amount of Rs. 9133/- simply on the basis of audit report, copy of which is Ex. R-6. Apart from this, it is also worth mentioning that opposite parties are claiming the amount of Rs. 9133/- on the basis of the report of M.E. Laboratory. No Notice for demand of Rs. 9133/- has been sent in the name of the connection holder or the complainant. Amount has been straightway added in the bill Ex. C-2 which is against the sales regulations. In the facts and circumstances, the demand of Rs. 9133/- raised by showing this amount in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 3.12.07 is certainly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.. <br /> 9. Now the question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, complainant is not liable to meet the demand of Rs. 9133/- shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 3.12.07. Direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw this amount as bill is illegal to this extent. Illegal demand must have caused mental tension, agony and harassment to the complainant for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-. <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 the demand of Rs. 9133/- raised by showing this amount in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill Ex. C-2 dated 3.12.07.<br /> ii) Pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14 (1)(d) of the Act. <br /> Compliance of this order be made with in 30 days from the date of its receipt failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) would carry interest @9% P.A. till payment.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 29-02-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br />