Complaint No: 58 of 2023.
Date of Institution: 15.03.2023.
Date of order:08.11.2023.
Sh.Kundan Lal aged 72 years S/O Munshi Ram S/O Bhana Mal, R/O G.T. Road, Mandi, Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
.....Complainant.
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala. 147001
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Through its Superintendent Engineer, Gurdaspur 143521
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Lt., Sub- Division, Joura Chhaitran (G-45), through its S.D.O. 143520.
....Opposite party/Respondents.
Complaint U/S-35 of Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the complainant: Sh.Akash Mahajan and Ms.Bhawna Sharma, Advocate.
For the opposite parties: Sh.B.S.Khaira, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Sh.Kundan Lal, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the PSPCL (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is having electric connection type NRS (Gen) with load of 0.99 KW in the Khad Store and average consumption is approximately 100 units in two months. It is further pleaded that opposite parties issued bill dated 09.03.2023 for Rs.89080/- in which sundry charges amounting to Rs.88080/- were illegally charged. It is further pleaded that the said bill being illegal is liable to be quashed.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to correct the bill no.500185891996 amounting to Rs.89080/- in which sundry charges (EC) amounting to Rs.88080/- were wrongly and illegally charged. Complainant has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed their written reply and has pleaded that complainant was found involved in theft of electricity in checking dated 04.07.2022 by the opposite parties and amount of Rs.88080/- was imposed for stealing electricity and as such amount was added in bill dated 09.03.2023 in the account No.G45NP4311619W of the complainant. It is further pleaded that land of the complainant is situated in village Khaira Kotli and on 04.07.2022 opposite parties raided and found that the complainant had installed 6BHP motor with direct wire from 100 KVA AP transformer at village Khaira Kotli near Gurudwara Ghar which is a case of theft of electricity and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has filed affidavit of complainant with copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has filed affidavit of Amandeep Singh Nagra S.D.O. Ex.OPW-1/A with copies documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.
6. Rejoinder filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments not filed by the parties.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is not having any land in village Bhikhariwal and as such the amount is not payable by the complainant and as such bill in dispute is liable to be quashed.
9. Counsel for the opposite parties has argued that on 04.07.2022 officials of opposite parties conducted a raid and found that a 6 BHP motor directly connected with 100 KVA AP transformer and as such amount of Rs.88080/- was added sundry charged in the bill of the complainant in respect of connection installed in his shop at village Jaura Chhitran and during the course of arguments counsel for the opposite parties has placed has placed on record copy of Jamabandi for the year 2017.2018 by of additional evidence, as per which Smt.Rita Gupta wife of Sh.Bodh Raj is co-sharer in the land where the theft is being alleged to have taken place but care full perusal of the copy of Jamabandi Ex-OP5 shows that complainant Kundan Lal is not disclosed to be owner of any land as per said jamabandi in the village where theft of electricity has taken place. Counsel for the opposite parties has placed judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012, D/d. 1.7.2013 in case titled as U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Anis Ahmad wherein it is held as under:-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(b) Electricity Act, 2003, Sections 126, 127 and 135 - Unauthorized use of electricity by consumer - Assessment made by Assessing officer under Section 126 of Electricity Act - Complaint against the assessment or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum - Offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act".
and has argued that in case of theft the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred.
10. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
11. Perusal of bill shows that Rs.88080/- has been added as sundry charges and the plea of the opposite parties that it is a case of theft of electricity by the complainant and as such the said fact has also been confirmed from report Ex.OP-1, but perusal of jamabandi which is exhibit Ex.OP-5 shows that Kundan Lal is not having any land in village Bhikhariwal and the theft if any as alleged by the opposite parties has been committed by Smt.Rita Gupta wife of Sh.Bodh Raj who is claimed to be sister-in-law of the complainant. We are of the view that since theft has not been committed by the complainant and allegation of theft has been falsely leveled upon the complainant without any proof of ownership of land where theft has allegedly taken place. Even the land is owned by Smt.Rita Gupta with which the complainant has no concern. As such we are of the view that fact of the case law as stated above in case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Anis Ahmad are not applicable in the present case. Hence we have no hesitation in holding that notice Ex.OP-2 memo No.591 dated 05.07.2022 is legally not sustainable to be issued in the name of the complainant and opposite parties have no authority to recover the amount of Rs.88080/- from the complainant in respect of alleged theft which is taken place in the land of some other person. Opposite parties have failed to prove the involvement of the complainant in the alleged theft of electricity with cogent evidence.
Further, opposite parties have violated their own instructions given in ESIM-2018 under instruction No.93.1, which read as under:-
"Supplementary bill shall be issued separately giving complete detail of charges in regard to theft case, slowness of meter, wrong connection of the meter and unauthorized use of electricity etc.".
But opposite parties have not issued any supplementary bill in this regard to the complainant but straightway added the said amount relating to theft of electricity in the account of the electricity connection in the name of the complainant. Hence, charging of amount of Rs.88080/- in the said account of the complainant as sundry charges is not justified.
12. Accordingly, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties directed to rectify the electricity bill dated 09.03.2023 bearing A/c No.G45NP4311619W and withdraw the recovery of Rs.88080/- from the said bill charged as sundry charges. However opposite parties are at liberty to recover the disputed amount from the person involved in the alleged theft.
No order as to costs.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Nov. 08, 2023 Member
*YP*
