DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No. CC/10/98 of  16.2.2010

                                                Decided on: 19.10.2010

Gurcharan Singh aged about 32 years son of Sh.Bachan Singh R/o Village Mardanheri Tehsil & District Patiala.

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

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Electricity Board , Patiala through its Secretary.

2.                 The Assistant Engineer/OP Civil Line Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board ,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:     Smt.Sneh Lata, Advocate   

For opposite parties:     Sh. Pawan Puri,  Advocate

                                         ORDER

SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                                      Complainant Gurcharan 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 has applied for permanent electric connection vide receipt dated 27.1.2010. That the complainant is getting construction over the plot bearing No.64-C,Ranjit Nagar, Patiala. The complainant had been using electricity through temporary connection No.T-3310 after deposit of requisite ACD vide BA-16 No.298 Book No.8918 amounting to Rs.1490/-dated 11.12.2009 and No.362 Book No.8018 dated 2.11.2009 amounting to Rs.672/-. The complainant had been using submersible and two bulbs from this temporary connection as per requirement. The said temporary connection when not got stopped and the same continued to run up to 8.7.2009 and stopped construction due to paucity of funds. That the complainant has now applied for electric connection under DS category to the opposite party no.2 vide BA-16 receipt No.287 book No.90923 amounting to Rs.2260/- as now the complainant intends to complete the construction over the plot. That some officer/official of the opposite parties by disclosing  his identity as Sr.Xen/Enforcement, Patiala checked the premises of the complainant on 25.1.2010 but nothing wrong was found in the premises of the complainant. That the complainant received memo No.131 dated 25.1.2010 on 27.1.2010 when the complainant visited opposite party no.2  for new connection issued by the opposite party no.2 directing the complainant to deposit Rs.42490/- plus Rs.3000/- with the false allegation “f;ZXh e[zvh brk e/ wekB pDk fojk ;h.” This factually is totally wrong. That the opposite party no.2 again issued another memo no.154 dated 29.1.2010 directing the complainant to deposit Rs.24850/- plus Rs.3000/- with the same allegation. The complainant when requested for release of electric connection as already applied, but the opposite party no.2 flatly refused before the deposit of entire amount. That the memo No.131 dated 25.1.2010 and memo no.154 dated 29.1.2010 requiring the complainant to deposit Rs.24850/- plus Rs.3000/- with the opposite party no.2 and further action of the opposite party no.2 in refusing to release electric connection already applied for are illegal, null and void, against the principles of natural justice and rules and regulations of the Board itself. That there is no theft of electricity by the complainant nor the same was found at site. In fact, the complainant being law abiding citizen had applied for electric connection to the opposite party no.2 and the officers of opposite parties are not releasing the electric connection to the complainant and have served false memos and false report in order to harass and extort money which is not justified under law. That no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the complainant before issuing the impugned memo. There are no signatures of the complainant on the alleged checking report. The opposite parties are delaying the release of electric connection to the complainant despite the fact that the complainant has fulfilled all the requisite requirements for release of connection. All the requisite fittings have already been made. That the opposite parties are harassing the complainant by serving the aforesaid illegal order and have caused mental tension particularly when there is nothing wrong in the premises of the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled for Rs.30000/-as damages and harassment caused to the complainant on account of service of illegal memo apart from setting aside the impugned memo dated 29.1.2010 is also liable to be stayed. The opposite parties are also guilty of deficiency of service by not releasing the electric connection against application and amount received on 27.1.2010.The opposite parties are also liable to be restrained from disconnecting the electric connection of the premises 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 complainant had taken the temporary connection and the period of the same has expired on 8.7.2009. That the complainant had applied to the Board for temporary connection and the same was allowed to the complainant till 8.7.2009.The site of the connection was checked by the Senior Executive Engineer/Enforcement,P.S.E.B.,Patiala alongwith A.E.E./Enforcement and J.E.Operation Sub Division, Civil Line on 25.1.2010 and it was detected by the checking officer of the Board that the complainant was using the electricity supply directly from the main service line of the Board i.e. by making ‘Kundi’ connection. No meter was found installed in the premises of the consumer by the checking officer. It is an established case of theft of energy. The checking was conducted in the presence of representative of consumer namely Sohan Singh, who had countersigned the checking report in token of  correctness of such checking. The cable with the aid of which the consumer was committing theft of energy by making kundi was removed from the site of the consumer and the same has been taken in possession by the checking officer and the same  has been  handed over to the concerned J.E. of Civil Line Sub Division for keeping the same in his safe custody. The concerned Sub Divisional Office of the Board had issued a notice to the consumer under Section 135 of the Electricity Act,2010 vide which the consumer was directed to deposit the amount of Rs.24850/- as penalty for committing theft of electricity energy and Rs.3000/- as compoundable charges in case he intends to compound the offence of theft of energy. The complainant has failed to deposit any amount inspite of receipt of notice. No objections have been filed by the consumer before the assessing officer. The same amounts to admission of guilt. It is denied that the complainant had stopped the construction after 8.7.2009.The complainant is not entitled to the new connection till he deposits the amount of penalty. It is an admitted fact that the connection of the complainant was checked by the Senior Executive Engineer/Enforcement,A.E.E./Enforcement and accompanied officials of the Civil Line Sub Division i.e. J.E./operation. It is denied that nothing wrong was found in the premises of the complainant. In fact, the complainant was caught of committing theft of energy by by-passing the meter. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was issued the notice vide which demand was raised against the complainant and the complainant was also afforded the opportunity to file the objections against the orders of demand, if any. The demand notice issued by the Board is legal. There is no illegality in any manner. It is denied that the complainant has not committed any theft of energy. It is denied that the complainant has not been afforded the opportunity of hearing. In fact, the complainant was afforded the opportunity of hearing but the complainant failed to avail the same. The complainant has filed the false complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs and compensation. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.

4.                                   The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record.

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

6.                                   The case of complainant is that he had applied for a new electric connection for domestic use with the opposite parties and he had deposited the security amount vide receipt No.287 book No.90923 ,Ex.C4 amounting to Rs.2260/-.It is also the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have not installed the electric connection inspite of repeated requests. It is also the case of the complainant that some officer/official of the opposite parties by disclosing his identity as Sr.Xen Enforcement Patiala checked his premises on 25.1.2010 but nothing wrong was found. It is also the case of the complainant that he received memo Ex.C6 dated 25.1.2010 from opposite party no.2 wherein he was directed to deposit Rs.42490/- + Rs.3000/- with the false allegations of using electricity through kundi connection. It is also the case of the complainant that he received another memo,Ex.C2 dated 29.1.2010 from opposite party no.2 wherein he was directed to deposit Rs.24850/- + Rs.3000/- with the same allegations. It is also the case of the complainant that action of opposite party no.2 in refusing to release electric connection already applied for and the memos,Exs.C2 and C6 are illegal, null and void against the principle of natural justice rules and regulations of the Board etc.

7.                                   Whereas the case of opposite parties is that the complainant had applied to the Board for temporary connection and the same was allowed to the complainant upto to 8.7.2009.The complainant has ceased to be the consumer of the opposite parties after the expiry of the said date. It is also the case of the opposite parties that the connection of the complainant was checked by the Enforcement officers on 25.1.2010 in the presence of representative of the consumer namely Sohan Singh and it was detected that the complainant was committing theft of electricity energy by using the electricity supply directly from the main service line of the Board i.e. by making kundi connection. No meter was found installed in the premises of the consumer by the checking officer and that it is an established case of theft of electricity. The concerned sub Division of the Board had issued notice to the consumer u/s 135 of the Act dated 29.1.2010,Ex.C2 vide which the demand of Rs.24850/- has been raised as penalty for committing theft of electricity and Rs.3000/- as compounding charges. It is also the case of the opposite parties that earlier to the notice dated 29.1.2010,Ex.C2,the concerned office of the Board had issued a demand of Rs.42490/- vide memo dated 25.1.2010,Ex.C6 but the same has been revised to Rs.24850/- on 29.1.2010 as per notice,Ex.C2.It is also the case of the opposite parties that the complainant is not entitled to the release of connection till he deposits the amount of Rs.24850/- + Rs.3000/- as compounding charges. The demand is absolutely legal and there is no illegality in any manner.

8.                                   We have considered the rival contentions of the parties.

9.                                   The perusal of the checking report dated 25.1.2010,Ex.R5 would show that a checking was made in the premises of the complainant. The checking report,Ex.R5 shows that the complainant was found committing theft of electricity energy using the electricity supply directly from the main service line of the Board i.e. by direct kundi connection. The perusal of the checking report,Ex.R5 further shows that the connection of the complainant was checked in the presence of representative of the consumer namely Sohan Singh .On the basis of the said checking the concerned office of the Board had issued  a demand of Rs.42490/- vide memo dated 25.1.2010 ,Ex.C6 + Rs.3000/- as compounding charges for unauthorized use of supply. The perusal of the record further shows that the concerned Sub Division of the Board had issued notice to the consumer u/s 135 of the Electricity Act dated 29.1.2010,Ex.C2 vide which the demand of Rs.24850/- has been raised as penalty for committing theft of electricity  and Rs.3000/- as compounding charges. So the demand of Rs.42490/- which was raised vide memo,Ex.C6 was revised to Rs.24850/- vide memo,Ex.C2. The complainant has however, failed to deposit the said amount. Now the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking the fresh connection in his own name in the same premises. The concerned office of the Board had informed the complainant that connection can only be released after depositing of the amount of Rs.24850/- + Rs.3000/- as compounding charges. That being so we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

10.                                 In the result we hold that the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

                                      File be consigned to the record.

Pronounced.

Dated:19.10.2010.

                                                                             President

                                                                             Member

                                                                             Member