Complainant Bahadur Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party no.2 be directed to the opposite party no.3 to pay the illegal and excess amount of Rs.28,330/- alongwith litigation expenses and mental harassment money of Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% to him, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has alienated the house in village Nainokot to the Prithvi Pal Singh son of Katha Singh of Rs.40,000/- by registered sale deed dated 22.05.1998 and on the said date possession was delivered to the Prithvi Pal Singh. In alienated house a meter No.MX27/278 was retained in the alienated house and that meter was used by Arvinder Pal Singh son of Baldev Singh opposite party no.3 till date. The meter was installed in the house of opposite party no.3 without his connivance and he used this meter uptill now and sometimes also paying the bill to the electricity board. Meter removed from the house of Arvinder Pal Singh opposite party no.3 vide PDCO No.45/1035 dated 12.2.2015 in Sub Division Kahnuwan with his signature. The amount of illegal bill which was used by the opposite party no.3 sent to him with the connivance of the opposite party no.1 and 2. He asked the opposite party no.2 that this illegal bill charge is not used by him. So this meter bill is due against the opposite party no.3 but due to political pressure opposite party no.2 is not admitting his claim. The act and conduct of the opposite parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has got no cause of action or any locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has filed the present false and frivolous complaint with sole motive to cause unnecessary harassment to the opposite parties; the complainant had not approached the Ld.Forum with clean hands and the connection in dispute was running in the name of the complainant and the complainant was consumer of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and incase any amount is outstanding in the name of consumer, the complainant is liable to pay the same. On merits, it was submitted that the meter in question was removed from the house of complainant vide PDCO No.45/1035 dated 12.2.2015 and it was effected by JE Naresh Kumar on 25.04.2015. The meter after removed was packed in a cardboard box as per provisions of the Corporation in the presence of the complainant. Thereafter, notice was also issued to the complainant for appearing in the ME Lab on 26.7.2016 for checking of the meter. During checking of the meter in the ME Lab it was found that both the seals of the meter were tempered, ultra soundsis  welding was broken and there were also other tempering in the meter and a clear cut case of theft of electricity energy made against the complainant. Checking was conducted by SDO ME Lab alongwith SDO Sub Division Kahnuwan, Addl. SE Enforcement Batala. Thereafter notice bearing Memo No.835 dated 3.8.2016 was issued to the complainant and amount of Rs.28,320/- was demanded. An FIR No.438 dated 11.8.2016 U/S 135 of Electricity ACT P.S.Anti Power Theft Verka Distt.Amritsar has also been registered against the complainant for committing theft of electricity but the complainant instead of payment of legally and rightly demanded amount by the opposite parties and in order to save him from criminal action, filed this false complaint by concealing all facts. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.        Opposite party no.3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has got no cause of action or any locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant has filed the present false and frivolous complaint with sole motive to cause unnecessary harassment to the opposite parties; the complainant had not approached the Ld.Forum with clean hands and the connection in dispute was running in the name of the complainant and the complainant was consumer of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and incase any amount is outstanding in the name of consumer, the complainant is liable to pay the same. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant and his family members and servants are residing in his house and even they committed theft of electricity and the PSPCL has imposed penalty upon the complainant and also got registered FIR against him. But the complainant has filed this false complaint with sole motive to shift his onus of theft upon the opposite party. Actually and factually the complainant had been using the electricity connection in question. Even Gram Panchayat and respectable persons of the village has given in writing that the opposite party has no concern with the connection in dispute. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.     Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C26 and closed the evidence. 

6.       Sh.Ravinder Pal Singh S.D.O. of opposite parties no.1 and 2 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1,2/1 and of Sh.Naresh Kumar J.E. PSPCL Ex.OP-1,2/2, alongwith other documents Ex.OP1,2/3 to Ex.OP-1,2/8 and closed the evidence.

7.      Sh.Arvinder Pal Singh opposite party no.3 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-3/1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-3/2 to Ex.OP-3/9 and closed the evidence.

8.       We have intently heard the learned counsels for the present contestants in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/ document(s) as produced by them in order to statutorily adjudicate the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. As of its Back-drop, we find that the complainant had been admittedly the holder of DS Electric Meter # MX27/278 installed at his native village house duly sold by him vide Sale Deed dated 22.05.1998 (Ex.C6) whereas he had shifted to his titled address at Gurdaspur in the year 1991 and since then the Meter had been allegedly in use by his immediate neighbour Arvinder Pal Singh opposite party 3 with the consenting knowledge of the opposite party 2 Corporation till its final disconnection carried out on 25.04.2015 vide (Ex.C5/Ex.OP1,2/5) PDCO # 45/2035 (of 12.02.2015). Incidentally, the instant DCO carries the signatures of the OP3 Arvinder Pal Singh, on behalf of its consumer. Further, the OP1&2 Corporation allege that the (so removed) Electric Meter upon Lab Testing (on 26.07.2016) was found to be in a tempered condition and thus an amount of Rs.28,320/- was levied/charged but to the present complainant vide (Ex.C2) Memo # 835 of 03.08.2016 along with the FIR # 438 (of 11.08.2016) registered against him.

9.       We find that the complainant has sufficiently and successfully rebutted all the OP’s charges/allegations by producing his affidavit Ex.C1 duly supported by other documents/evidence on record exhibited here as: Ex.C2 to Ex.C26. We find that the complainant had shifted to his Gurdaspur house purchased (vide Sale Deed Ex.C18) in the year 1989 at the titled address as evidenced by Ex.C7 to Ex.C17. Further, through his letters (copies Ex.C19 to Ex.C22) the complainant had even earlier advised the opposite parties 1&2 (in the year 2014) of the OP3 usage of the Electric Meter (in question) but that did not relent OP 1&2 as is evidenced by its reply letter (Ex.C23) with enclosures etc. Finally, Ex.C25 & Ex.C26 do prove the alleged civil litigation (pertaining to one tube-well connection) between the OP3 and the complainant proving the inter-se grudge and rivalry etc. On the other hand, the OP 1& 2 Corporation has produced its affidavits Ex.OP1,2/1&2 deposing its averred allegations along with the other supporting documents exhibited here as: Ex.OP1,2/3 to Ex.OP1,2/8. However, the OP 1&2 Corporation through its documentary evidence has somehow failed to establish its charges and resulting claims etc. The affidavits of its SDO Ravinder Pal Singh & JE Naresh Kumar do not clarify as to how signatures of the OP3 appear on the MDCO (Ex.C5/ Ex.OP1,2/5) and who has been paying Bills of the impugned connection throughout the intervening period of more than a decade and why its officials failed to transfer the connection in the name of the then beneficiary. Further, the electricity connection was allowed to continue even after the complainant’s request for its disconnection etc and the Meter disconnected vide DCO of February’ 2015 is subjected to Lab Testing much later in February’ 2016. Also, as per the available records, the memo (Ex.OP1,2/3) issuing authority did not apply its mind before prompting the same little realizing that all ‘executive’ decisions are open to judicial review. Moreover, there has been no deposition of the Meter Testing Engineer produced on records to support such a serious allegation of ‘tempering’. Further, we find that the documents/evidence (Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/9) as produced on record by the OP3 is all dipped in the hue of grudge & rivalry (sans merit) and above all it does not materially affect the present adjudicatory in any way.                            

10.     We find that the OP Corporation has not acted in an impartial manner in the instant case and has indeed bruised/infringed the statutory consumer rights of the present consumer by way of issuance of memo # 835 dated 03.08.2016 for Rs.28,320/- (Ex.C2/ Ex.OP1,2/3) along with the other harassment etc and that rakes it up for an adverse statutory award under the applicable Act. However, the matter pertaining to the FIR # 438 of 11.08.2016 does not fall within the jurisdiction of the forum and thus the same has been distinctly left as such (untouched) for trial/adjudication by competent judicial authority.    Moreover, the impugned demand as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the arbitrary amount by the opposite party corporation has been admittedly not a matter of routine and the same has not even been proved to be in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per its Sales/Distribution Policy and the Rules & Regulations etc framed, there under. 

11.     In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the opposite party corporation to withdraw the impugned Memo # 835 dated 03.08.2016 for Rs.28,320/- (Ex.C2/Ex.OP1,2/3) in favor of the present complainant besides to pay him a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded aggregate amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment. However OP’s are at liberty to recover the impugned amount from the actual beneficiary of the connection if they so desire and advised but certainly not from the present complainant before us.

12.      Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President   

Announced:                                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

December,27 2016                                                                     Member

*MK*