DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA<br /> <br /> CC. No. 272 of 26-09-2008<br /> Decided on : 05-02-2009 <br /> <br /> Ram Lal aged about 52 years S/o Sh. Harbhagwan Singh, R/o Village Mall Road, Goniana, Tehsil and District Bathinda. ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary. <br /> 2.The S.D.O/A.E.E. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Goniana Mandi.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> Present : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the complainant<br /> Sh. Navneet Kumar. Garg, Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SH. PRITAM SINGH DHANOA, PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> 1. This complaint, has been filed, by Sh. Ram Lal,son of Sh. Harbhagwan Singh, resident of Mall Road, Goniana, Tehsil and District Bathinda, against Punjab State Electricity Board (Here-in-after referred to as 'board'), through its Secretary and S.D.O. Sub Division, Goniana Mandi, Bathinda, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), on the averments, which may briefly be described as under :-<br /> That complainant, has got installed, an NRS electric connection bearing Account No. GN 16/0340 in his shop, wherein he is running business of general merchants, without assistance of any employee. He is regularly paying bills, drawn by the opposite parties, for electric energy consumed, by him. As such, he is consumer, under the opposite parties qua the said electric connection, in the ambit of its definition, given under the Act. The sanctioned load of the complainant is 0.72 KW. He is sparingly using the electric energy. The opposite parties, have served notice, upon him vide memo No. 2474, dated 10-09-2008, raising demand of Rs. 35,560/-, on the allegations that he had been committing theft of electric energy, by directly drawing electricity, from transmission line, by using a hook. The copy of the checking report, supplied to the complainant, by the opposite parties, is not legible. The notice served upon the complainant, by the opposite parties is illegal, void and against the rules, framed by the board on the subject and is liable, to be set aside on the grounds ; that neither checking has been done on 05-09-2008, by the officials of the board, nor signatures of the complainant were secured and no witness, from the village of the complainant, has signed the checking report; that at the time of alleged checking, the electric connections of the other consumers, in the locality, were also checked; that the opposite parties, have not given the details in the memo, about the manner in which, theft of electricity energy, was committed by the complainant; that no officials of the board, has ever pointed out any theft of electricity by the complainant, and opposite parties have not got registered any F.I.R. The complainant, has suffered mental and physical harassment, due to service of illegal notice, upon him by the opposite parties, as such, there is deficiency of service, on their part, for which they are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/-, on account of compensation, and to compensate the complainant for costs incurred by him, for filing the complaint. The prayer, has also been made for giving direction, to the opposite parties, to withdraw the notice or set aside the same. Since the opposite parties are failed, to withdraw the memo, and to listen the complainant, hence the complaint.<br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties, filed written version resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that complaint is not maintainable, and is premature because notice served upon the complainant, vide memo No. 2474 dated 10-09-2008, is only a provisional assessment, to which objections of the complainant has been invited, and he has been afforded opportunity of being heard but he has concealed the material facts, from the knowledge of this Forum; that complainant is not consumer, under the opposite parties, as such, he is not entitled, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum; that intricate, questions of law and facts are involved, as such, controversy cannot, be adjudicated, in summary manner, by this Forum, and as such, complainant be directed, to approach the civil court; that no cause of action, has arisen in his favour to file the complaint; that he is estopped from filing the complaint, by his act and conduct; that the complainant is using the electricity, for commercial purposes, as such, he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction, of this Forum and complaint, has been filed by him, to harass and humiliate, the opposite parties, as such, it is liable to be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it is admitted, that complainant has got installed, an NRS electric connection, with sanctioned load of 0.72 K.W., in his shop. It is submitted, that complainant has signed the checking report, on 05-09-2008, in English and notice has been served upon the complainant, vide memo No. 2474 dated 10-09-2008, directing him to deposit, the amount of provisional assessment, but it is denied, that the same is illegal, or void and that no checking has been done, on the shop of the complainant and copy of the report, was supplied to him is not legible. It is submitted, that officials of the board, approached several persons living in the neighborhood, to affix the signatures, as witnesses on the checking report, but they refused, to do so, on one pretext or the other. It is submitted, that method of commission of theft, is mentioned in the checking report, and it is denied that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, in rendering service, to the complainant qua his electric connection or that he has been subjected, to mental and physical harassment, because of service of notice upon him. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied and prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. <br /> 3. On being called upon, by this Forum, to do so, the complainant, furnished his affidavits, Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 and photocopies of documents Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-7 including electricity bills and receipts issued by the opposite parties. He has also tendered affidavits of Chattar Singh and Babu Singh Ex. C-8 & Ex. C-8, respectively, stated to be living in his vicinity, before he closed the evidence. On the other hand, Sh. Harvel Singh, S.D.O. tendered his affidavit Ex. R-1 and Sh. Naresh Kumar Jindal, Revenue Accountant, furnished his affidavit Ex. R-2 and learned counsel for the opposite parties, closed the evidence after tendering the copies of documents, Ex. R-3 to Ex. R-5 including checking report, copy of notice served upon the complainant.<br /> 4. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and perused the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. <br /> 5. At the out set, learned counsel for the complainant, Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate, has submitted, that manner in which, theft was committed by the complainant, is not mentioned in the memo and the copy of checking report, supplied to the complainant, was not legible. Learned counsel has further submitted, that checking party has not taken into custody, the electric wire, alleged to have been used for abstraction of electric energy and neither photograph, has been taken, nor produced, by the opposite parties showing that the complainant was committing theft of electric energy. Learned counsel has further submitted that the officials of the board, who have tendered evidence are not part of the checking staff, as such, memo is liable, to be set aside and complainant is entitled, to seek, compensation, from the opposite parties, on account of physical and mental harassment and also costs incurred by him, in filing of the complaint. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance upon 2006 (1) CPJ 447 Charan Singh Vs. P.S.E.B. (Chairman) and Another, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh, that in case of charge of theft of electric energy, strict proof is required, to establish the offence. Since there was no collateral evidence, regarding taking into possession of PVC wire, allegedly used, for stealing energy, it was held that board, cannot raise demand, on bare report of meter inspector, and the impugned notice served upon, the complainant, was set aside.<br /> 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties Sh. Navneet Garg, has submitted, that checking report, bears the signatures of the complainant, whereby he has admitted, the contents thereof and he has availed, the opportunity afforded to him, to file the objection and reply to his notice. Learned counsel has further submitted that complainant has admitted, the factum of checking of electric connections, in the locality and as per evidence adduced on record by the opposite parties, he has subsequently got enhanced connected load, by the board from 0.72 K.W. to 1.76 K.W, and manner of commission of theft, has been described, in the notice and checking report in detail, as such, the instant complaint, filed by the complainant, being abuse of process of law, is liable to be dismissed, with costs and he is not entitled, to payment any compensation or costs.<br /> 7. As per the admitted facts, NRS electric connection bearing Account No. GN 16/0340 has been got installed, by the complainant in his shop, from the opposite parties. It is also not disputed that complainant, has been depositing the amount of electricity bills, before service of notice upon him by the opposite parties, to deposit the amount of Rs. 35,560/-, vide impugned memo No. 2474 dated 10-09-2008, on the allegations, that he was found committing theft of electric energy, for running a welding set, in his shop, by applying a hook, directly from transmission line. The copy of the checking report, Ex. R-5 bears the signatures of the complainant. He has not disputed, the factum of his signatures, on the checking report and receipt of copy thereof. The only plea of the complainant, is that copy supplied to him by the members of the checking staff, was not legible. Since the complainant, has admitted the contents of the report, by appending his signatures on checking report, therefore, he cannot wriggle out, of them and urge that he was not aware of the contents of the checking report and manner in which, he was caught, committing theft of electric energy. In the complaint itself, the complainant, has taken the plea, that checking staff has also conducted the checking of the electric meters installed in the premises of other consumers on even date. As such, factum of checking stands proved. As per contents of the copy of checking report Ex. R-5, the complainant had been operating welding set of 2.5 K.W capacity by applying hook, on transmission line, for repair of shutter of his shop. It is also mentioned, in the copy of the checking report, that since the wire used, for commission of electric energy, was permanently fixed, with welding set, therefore, the same could not be taken into custody. Therefore, omission on the part of members of checking staff to take the welding set into custody, does not demolish the case of the opposite parties. As discussed above, the manner of commission of theft of electric energy, by the complainant, in-material particulars, in the checking report, supplied to the complainant, who has not denied the said fact. It also contains the manner of provisional assessment, as per the rules, on the subject framed, by the board. The opposite parties, have also brought on record, oral and documentary evidence, showing that after the complainant, was caught stealing electric energy, he got enhanced sanctioned load, of his electric connection, from 0.72 KW to 1.76 K.W. Therefore, we have come to the conclusion that complainant, has failed to establish that notice served upon him is illegal or suffer from any act of arbitrariness. Since deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, is not established, therefore, complainant is not entitled to payment any amount on account of compensation as prayed for, in the complaint. We have carefully gone through, the ratio judgement delivered in 2006(1) CPJ 447 (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant, but have come to the conclusion, that facts and circumstances thereof, were quite distinguishable from those of the case in hand. In the said case, demand was raised, by the board on the report of meter inspector which was not even signed, by the consumer and PVC wire allegedly used by him for by-passing the meter, was not taken into possession, by the raiding party. As such, ratio of judgement delivered in the said authority, does not advance, the case of the complainant. <br /> 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint and leave the parties to bear their own costs. The copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of costs, as per rules, on the subject.<br /> File be indexed and consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 05-02-2009 (Pritam Singh Dhanoa)<br /> (Amarjeet Paul) (Dr. Phulinder Preet) President<br /> Member Member <br /> <br />