DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No. CC/010/93 of 10.2.2010     

                                                Decided on: 6.9.2010

Balbir Singh s/o Ronki Ram R/o village Kaloli,The Rajpura District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Electricity Board , H.O.The Mall,Patiala through its Secretary.

2.     Sub Divisional Officer, Electricity Sub
Division P.S.E.B. Banur District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.                                   

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.Inderjit Singh, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.  H.S.Kang,   Advocate   

For opposite parties:     Sh.  Pawan Puri,  Advocate

                                         ORDER

SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                                      Complainant Balbir Singh   has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against  the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.

2.                                   As per averments made in the complaint the case

of   the complainant is like this:-

                                      That the complainant is holding a domestic electricity connection bearing account No.Z71DF420945N in his name and the sanctioned load of the meter in question is 0.60KW and the complainant is regularly paying the electricity bill to the opposite parties. That the opposite parties have wrongly and illegally issued a bill for the period 11.10.2009 to 11.12.2009 for an amount of Rs.38600/- whereas the reading of the meter i.e. consumption was only 108 units thus the opposite iparties have demanded the above said amount wrongly. That no checking ever took place at the house of the complainant at village Kaloli. That the complainant was shocked and stunned when a bill for the above said period amounting to Rs.38600/-was sent by the opposite parties. The opposite parties put pressure to deposit the above said amount, failing which they are threatening to disconnect the electricity supply. That the complainant never committed any theft of the electricity nor any such checking was held by the opposite parties at the house of the complainant. Thus the complainant is not liable to pay the above said amount to the opposite parties. That the bill in question for Rs.38600/- is wrong and illegal and has been sent to the complainant in violation of the regulation 37.1 and 37.2 of the Electricity Code as no checking was conducted by the opposite parties. That the status of the meter has been shown to be OK and the meter is functioning properly with seal intact. At no stage theft was committed by way of kundi connection or otherwise. That no spot memo was prepared or given to the complainant or his family member. Similarly no provisional notice or final assessment notice was ever served to complainant or his family member. Thus opposite parties have grossly violated mandatory provisions of Electricity Code. That the complainant has not been given any opportunity of hearing orally or in writing and the bill in question has been sent without giving any hearing to the complainant, thus rule of natural justice has been violated. That however, keeping in view the threats of the opposite parties the complainant under protest has deposited an amount of Rs.20000/- on 27.1.2010 in the office of opposite party no.2 in order to avoid disconnection. The opposite parties are also demanding the balance amount of the bill. The action of the opposite parties is wrong, false, frivolous and not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is in contravention of rules and regulations of the Electricity Code. The opposite parties are demanding balance amount of the bill failing which they are bent upon to disconnect the supply of electricity to which the opposite parties have no authority. That the opposite parties have not sent any notice to the complainant provisional or final assessment order and the complainant was not in a position to represent against the notice and has been deprived of the right of hearing and representation and the bill has been sent to the complainant without hearing him. That opposite parties have threatened to disconnect the supply if the balance amount as raised by them vide bill dated 10.1.2010 is not deposited shortly. Whereas the meter is being shown OK. That the complainant has many times approached the opposite parties and requested to withdraw the bill in question and not to recover the amount of Rs.38600/- and not to disconnect the supply but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. That no personal hearing was ever afforded thus  cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant. Hence this complaint.

3.                                   Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the connection of the consumer was checked in the joint checking of checking officers of the Board on 31.7.2009 and it was detected by the checking officers that the consumer was committing theft of electricity energy by adopting illegal means. It has been reported by the checking officers that the consumer was committing theft of electricity by by-passing the meter i.e. by making kundi.The method and manner of committing theft of electricity energy has been duly explained in the checking report by the checking officer. The consumer was present at the site but refused to counter sign the checking report. The complainant was also caught of using unauthorized load. The complainant was caught of using load of 1.520 KW load and whereas the sanctioned load of the connection is only 0.60KW. The concerned assessing officer of the Sub Division had issued a notice under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to the consumer vide which it was informed to the complainant that the checking officers have checked his connection in presence of consumer Balbir Singh and found that the complainant was committing theft of electricity energy by adopting illegal means. The complainant was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.33924/- as penalty for committing the theft of electricity energy. The complainant was advised to file any objection or representation or appear for personal hearing before the assessing officer, who is the competent authority as per Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters   Regulations   2007.  The  complainant  has not  filed any objections

against the said orders of assessment. It is an established case of theft of electricity energy. The demand has been raised as per rules. There is absolutely no illegality in conducting the checking or of raising the demand by the Board. The orders of assessment have been passed as per rules. The orders of provisional assessment have become final due to non filing of objections by the complainant. It is denied that the memo of demand is illegal in any manner. It is denied that the complainant has not committed theft of energy. The Board has the right and authority to take the action against the complainant as per rules. It is denied that the complainant was shocked on receiving the demand notice. It is denied that the complainant has not committed any theft of energy. It is denied that no checking has been conducted of the connection of the complainant or the complainant was not caught of committing theft of electricity energy. The allegations of the complainant are absolutely false. It is denied that no spot memo was prepared or given to the complainant or his family member. It is denied that no provisional orders of assessment were served or delivered to the complainant. It is denied that the complainant has not been given any opportunity of hearing orally or in writing or the bill in question has been sent without giving any hearing to the complainant. It is denied that the rules of Principles of natural justice have been violated. It is denied that the complainant has suffered in any manner. It is denied that the demand is illegal as has been alleged by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant has any cause of action to file the present complaint. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to any compensation. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.

4.                                   In order to prove his case the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CW1/A,  bill dated 10.1.2010,Ex.C1, copy of receipt,Ex.C2, copy of bill dated 10.7.2009,Ex.C3 and affidavit,Ex.C4 of Sh.Sher Singh.

5.                                   In rebuttal the opposite parties did not lead any evidence inspite of the fact that they were given not less than 7 opportunities to produce their entire evidence. On 9.8.2010 the case was fixed for evidence of opposite parties and they were given the last opportunity to produce their entire evidence. But inspite of the last opportunity they failed to produce their entire evidence and evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order.

6.                                   The complainant has filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                                   The whole case of the opposite parties is dependent upon the alleged checking report dated 31.7.2009.The case of the opposite parties is that the checking officers detected that the complainant was committing theft of electricity energy by adopting illegal means by by-passing the meter. However, to prove their allegation the opposite parties have not lead any evidence on the record. As has been discussed above the evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order on 9.8.2010.

8.                                   The complainant has challenged the bill,Ex.C1 dated 10.1.2010 wherein an amount of Rs.38064/- has been claimed as arrears of current financial year. The perusal of the bill,Ex.C1 would further show that it pertains to the period 11.10l2009 to 11.12.2009.The bill further shows that it is for the consumption of 108 units. The perusal of the bill further shows that no details of the amount shown as arrears of current financial year have been given. The amount of Rs.38064/- claimed in the bill,Ex.C1 is not supported by any evidence.

9.                                   In view of the foregoing discussion we are clearly of the view that the opposite parties have failed to establish their case of theft of electricity on the part of the complainant. We are also of the clear view that the opposite parties have unnecessarily drawn the complainant into prolonged litigation.

10.                                 As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.2000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

                                      File be consigned to the record.

Pronounced.

Dated:6.9.2010

                                                                             President

                                                                            Member

                                                                             Member