DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 231 of 13-08-2007<br /> Decided on :16-10-2007<br /> <br /> Jalandhar Singh S/o Jagraj Singh, R/o Gali No. 2, Jujhar Singh Nagar, Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2.Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Cantt.<br /> District Bathinda. .... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. K.S. Gill, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw bill dated 1.7.07 and send electricity bill for 413 units; pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- on account of sufferings and litigation expenses respectively.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that electricity connection bearing A/c No.B11/JS/361135N has been installed at his residential house. Bill for Rs. 3100/- was sent which was paid by him vide receipt dated 8.5.07. Now they have sent bill dated 1.7.07 for a sum of Rs. 19,350/- for consumption of 413 units. In this bill an amount of Rs. 17,587/- has been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances. He assails this demand of Rs. 17,587/- as illegal, arbitrary, null and void on the ground that no such amount is due towards him. He is liable to pay the charges for 413 units. Opposite parties are liable to withdraw the demand of Rs. 17,587/- and send fresh bill for 413 units. They were approached to correct the bill, but they did not accede to his request. He got served legal notice dated 16.7.07 upon the opposite parties through his counsel, but to no effect.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct; he has got no locus standi and cause of action to file it and complaint is false and frivolous. According to them, complainant has not come with clean hands. In fact checking was conducted by Er. M.L. Garg with the help of J.E Raj Singh on 6.7.06 at the premises of the complainant in the presence of Satbir Kaur , his representative. It was found that no meter was existing at the site. He (complainant) was found running Dairy by keeping 10-11 buffaloes which is a commercial activity. He was getting electricity in an unauthorised manner i.e. by way of putting kundi direct with the main service line passing in front of his premises. Load of 6.593 KW was being used by him for this purpose. It is a case of theft of energy. Cable was removed by the checking staff. Detailed checking report was prepared in the presence of Satbir Kaur, his representative. She refused to sign the checking report. Copy of the same was supplied to her then and there. On the basis of report, demand notice/memo No. 1872 dated 7.7.06 was issued raising demand of Rs. 7252/-. Complainant refused to sign the demand notice regarding its receipt. Thereafter domestic connection of the complainant bearing A/c No. JS-36/1135 was checked by Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, AEE/SDO on 4.8.06 in his presence. During checking it was found that there were two premises of the complainant. One was being used for Dairy purposes and the other for residential house. He was found using excess load of 6.4 KW as against the sanctioned load of 2.953 KW and that MCB and MTC seals were missing. Detailed checking report was prepared at the site in his presence and copy thereof was supplied to him. He refused to sign the checking report. On the basis of checking, Memo No. 2033 dated 7.8.06 was issued raising demand of Rs. 10,335/-. He refused to sign it. He has failed to comply with both the demands i.e. Rs. 7252/- and Rs. 10335/-. This amount is legal and recoverable from him. In this manner, total amount of Rs. 17,587/- has been charged in the bill dated 1.7.07. They deny the remaining averments 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 legal notice (Ex. C-2), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex. C-3 and Ex. C-4), photocopy of bill (Ex. C-5), photocopy of bill receipt (Ex. C-6) and photocopy of Acknowledgement card (Ex. C-7)<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties three affidavits of S/Sh. Bhupinder Singh, S.D.O, Sarabjit Singh, S.D.O. Raj Singh J.E (Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3) respectively, photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-4), photocopy of notice (Ex. R-5), photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-6) and photocopy of memo dated 7.8.06 (Ex. R-7) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. Copy of the impugned electricity bill dated 1.7.07 is Ex. C-5. A perusal of it reveals that recorded consumption is 413 units. Total amount of the bill is Rs. 19,350/- out of which Rs. 17,587/- have been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances. Complainant is assailing the demand of Rs. 17,587/- as illegal, arbitrary, null and void on the ground that this amount is not recoverable from him.<br /> 8. Submissions of Mr. Gill, learned counsel for the complainant are that the amount of Rs. 17,587/- is not recoverable from the complainant as it is not due against him. Complainant is liable to pay the charges for 413 units only. For this, reliance is placed by the complainant on his affidavit Ex. C-1 and copy of the legal notice dated 16.7.07 Ex. C-2.<br /> 9. Mr. Inderjit Singh. Learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that the premises of the complainant were checked on 6.7.06 and 4.8.06 by the officials of the Board and checking reports were prepared. On the basis of checking report, dated 7.7.06 demand of Rs. 7252/- was raised through memo dated 7.7.06, copy of which is Ex. R-5. Complainant did not append his signatures regarding its receipt. On the basis of checking dated 4.8.06, memo dated 7.8.06, copy of which is Ex. R-7 was issued raising demand of Rs. 10,335/-. Complainant did not put his signatures on it regarding its receipt. Since he did not deposit the amount of Rs. 7752/- and Rs. 10,335/- this total amount of Rs. 17,587/- has been added in the bill dated 1.7.07 and complainant is liable to pay it. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising the demand. To support it, reliance is placed on the documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-7.<br /> 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.<br /> 11. Opposite parties have disclosed their version regarding checkings dated 6.7.06 and 4.8.06 in the reply dated 29.8.07 of the complaint. They further brought to his notice that checking reports were prepared and on their basis demand of Rs. 7252/- and Rs. 10,335/- was raised vide memos No. 1872 dated 7.7.06 and 2033 dated 7.8.06 respectively. Complainant tendered his affidavit and copy of the legal notice dated 16.7.07 Ex. C-2 before this Forum on 18.9.07. He did not muster courage to deny the checkings dated 6.7.06 and 4.8.06 either in his affidavit or in the notice. His bald assertion that amount of Rs. 17,587/- is not recoverable and he is liable to pay the charge of actual consumption of 413 units is not acceptable in view of the abundant evidence led by the opposite parties. To prove the checking dated 6.7.06, there is affidavit Ex. R-3 of Sh. Raj Singh, Junior Engineer. He states in so many words that on 6.7.06 premises of the complainant were checked by Sh. M.L. Garg, Senior Executive Engineer in the presence of Satbir Kaur representative of the complainant. No meter was found installed. Complainant was found indulging in commercial activity by running Dairy by keeping 10-11 buffaloes. He was getting electricity by putting kundi direct in the main service line passing in front of his premises. Load being used by him was to the extent of 6.593 KW. Cable was taken into possession and checking report was prepared. Copy of checking report was supplied to Satbir Kaur then and there and she refused to sign it in token of receipt. Note has been given on the checking report, copy of which is Ex. R-4 that she refused to sign it. In Ex. R-3 Sh. Raj Singh has stated that removed cable is with him and can be produced as and when directed by this Forum. On the basis of the checking report dated 6.7.06, memo dated 7.7.06 raising demand of Rs. 7252/- was issued. This fact is also evident from the affidavit of Ex. R-1 of Sh. Bhupinder Singh, S.D.O./A.E.E. according to which complainant refused to sign Memo No. 1872 dated 7.7.06 vide which demand of Rs. 7252/- was raised. As per plea of the opposite parties another checking is dated 4.8.06. This checking has been proved by Sh. Sarabjit Singh, S.D.O/A.E.E whose affidavit is Ex. R-2. According to him complainant was using excess load i.e. 6.4 K.W. against sanctioned load of 2.953 K.W. and that MCB and MT seals were missing. Checking report was prepared at the site and consumer had refused to sign it. Its copy was supplied to him. Copy of the checking report is Ex. R-6. On its basis, memo dated 7.8.06, copy of which is Ex. R-7 was issued. As is clear from Ex. R-1, complainant refused to sign it. When complainant did not deposit the amount of Rs. 7252/- and Rs. 10,335/-, this amount was added in the impugned bill dated 1.7.07. All the official acts performed by the public servants in discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct. Complainant has not alleged or proved animus against the concerned official of the Board who conducted checking of his premises on 6.7.06 and 4.8.06. In these circumstances, they cannot be dubbed as incredible persons. First checking was done on 6.7.06. As per note given on Ex. R-4, complainant for the first time applied and deposited Rs. 2940/- as meter security on 28.6.06. There is nothing that connection was released to him till 6.7.06. Hence the use of electricity by him on 6.7.06 for commercial purposes i.e. for running Dairy was certainly an unauthorised. On 4.8.06 he was found using excess load as his sanctioned load was 2,953 KW whereas he was using load of 6.4 KW. Accordingly demands were raised the total amount of which came to Rs. 17,587/-. Since complainant did not deposit this amount, it has been rightly added in the impugned bill dated 1.7.07. In such a situation, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that he is liable to pay the charges for 413 units only. No deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising the demand of Rs. 17,587/- is established. In this view of the matter, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Rameshwar Bs. Sub Division Officer (O.P) Division, H.V.P.N. & Anr. 2006(1) CPC 458.<br /> 12. In the result, complaint is meritless and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be<br /> <br /> <br /> consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 16-10-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member