DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/102 of 17.2.2010 Decided on: 3.9.2010 Sukhwinder Singh aged about 31 years son of Sh.Nachattar Singh son of Sh.Jaggar Singh, resident of village Chappar,Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board ,Patiala through its Secretary. 2. S.D.O.PSEB,Sub Division Sanaur,District Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh. Kamal Nagpal, Advocate For opposite parties: Smt.Neena Kaushal, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Sukhwinder 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:- The electricity connection is installed in the name of Dera Jaggar Singh and having account No.BF38/212. Sh.Jaggar Singh is the grandfather of the complainant who has expired on 29.11.2009. That there is ill will with J.E.Mahinderpal who is the incharge of the area where the Dera of the complainant is situated. The reason behind it is that the said J.E. used to collect illegal amount from the villagers and from the complainant family of their tubewells installed in the agricultural land for which the complainant always opposed. Secondly there is a rule of P.S.E.B. where the Dera is situated within the radius of 500 meters the electricity charges are exempted but the J.E. made wrong report that the Dera of the complainant is outside the village and in some other village abadi so the same can not be exempted for which there was heated arguments between the said J.E. and complainant. Upon this the said J.E. threatened that he will teach a lesson to the complainant and his family members. That to the utter surprise, the complainant on 11.2.2010 found a notice lying in his Dera/house and after going through the said notice he found that the opposite party no.2 has claimed Rs.21596/- from the Dera Jagar Singh. Thereafter the complainant visited the office of opposite party no.2 and he was told that the officials of the opposite parties visited the Dera and found that the electricity is being stolen and a case of theft is made out therefore the above said amount is being claimed. That the complainant or any of his family members have never committed theft of electricity nor any of the employees of opposite parties visited or raided the Dera of the complainant. A false report has been made regarding theft at the instance of above named J.E. and wrong recovery is being claimed for which the complainant is not liable to pay. That as per the latest bill the reading of the meter was 1883 units to 2200 and on the alleged date of visit of the employees of opposite parties though they never visited was 4465 units when the load is 2.30KW.Even the meter is running fast. Moreover the meter is installed outside the boundary of Dera and is installed on the electric poll of opposite parties so there is no chance of theft. So the report of theft is totally false. That the said notice reveals that the payment of the said notice is to be paid within 7 days otherwise electricity connection will be disconnected. That the action of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency of service for which the complainant is liable to be compensated to the tune of Rs.20000/-, Rs.20000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs.10000/- for cost of the complaint. 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 wrong that J.E.Mohinder Pal used to collect illegal amount from the villagers and from the complainant’s family for which the complainant always opposed. Had any complaint been lodged by the complainant against J.E.Mohinder Pal Singh before the higher authorities of the P.S.E.B. or any police station of the above said alleged illegal behaviour of the J.E. It is wrong that the J.E. made wrong report that Dera of the complainant is out side the village. That the complainant regularly paid the uses of consumption charges from the very beginning of the installation of the meter. Why his grandfather or his father did not apply for the exemptions of any charges as per rules of the Board before this. It is wrong that the said J.E.threatened that he will teach a lesson to the complainant and his family members. The notice was issued to the complainant for depositing of Rs.21596/-as per checking report. That in the routine checking, the disputed connection of the complainant was checked by the officials of the P.S.E.B. alongwith checking staff of P.S.E.B. sub Division Sanaur, Patiala in the presence of the complainant and his family members on 6.2.2010 vide checking register No.810/57 and it was found by checking officer that the complainant was using electricity energy by illegal means and using excess load against the sanctioned load. “ ygseko B/ fgSb/ whNo dh gh th ;h s iV gk e/ f;ZXh sko gk e/ fpibh uoh eodk gkfJnk frnk. whNo pzd gkfJnk frnk. ygseko d/ fJe p/N/ tb pd;b{eh ehsh rJh ns/ vzvk b? e/ e[ZND bJh fsnko j frnk ns/ xo pkjo fBebD bJh fejk s/ d;sys eoB s fJBeko ehsh. Ygseko fi; gh th ;h s uoh eodk j?, T[j whNo dh N$c s/ bkfJnk ikt/ ih” which amounts to pilferage of energy by illegal means by him and he is liable to pay the same. That the complainant is also using excess load 3.992 KW against the sanctioned load 2.30KW. The all facts of theft have been mentioned in the checking report. After that the concerned office of the Board issued a bill cum notice u/s 135 of Electricity Act 2003 to the complainant on 8.2.2010 and asked for deposit of the amount within a period of 7 days. The complainant has failed to deposit the amount or file any objections to the said bill cum notice and the same amounts to admission of guilt by the complainant. Once the complainant has not availed the remedy of filing the reply to the notice then he has no cause of action to file the present complaint. A letter was also written to the inspector Anti Power Police Station to lodge FIR against the complainant vide letter no.202 dated 8.2.2010 by the opposite parties. The bill dated 8.2.2010 of Rs.21596/- is legal and correct and on the basis of the checking report. It is wrong that a false report has been made regarding theft at the instance of J.E. and wrong recovery is being claimed. The checking report is legal, correct and made on the spot in the presence of the complainant and his family members after detection of the theft which has been committed by the complainant on 6.2.2010.The reading of the meter of the latest bill is matter of record. Otherwise this reading does not apply to the facts of the present case. It is wrong that the meter is running fast. The complainant never lodged any complaint to the opposite parties regarding the running of fast meter. The action of the opposite parties is not illegal and not amounts to deficiency of service. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation for mental and physical harassment and any costs of the complaint. 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.C1, bill dated 21.12.2009,Ex.C2, Notice,Ex.C3 and receipt of payment,Ex.C4. 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties did not lead any evidence inspite of the fact that they were given not less than 6 opportunities to produce their entire evidence. On 20.7.2010 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 6.2.2010.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 20.7.2010. 8. The complainant has challenged the memo,Ex.C3 dated 8.2.2010 wherein an amount of Rs.21596/- has been claimed alongwith Rs.9000/- as compounding charges. The memo,Ex.C3 dated 8.2.2010 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:3.9.2010 President Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
