BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 53

Date of Institution : 3.3.2010

Date of Decision : 18.10.2010

Chander Bhan aged 42 years s/o Madan Lal, Dwareana Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Complainant Versus

1. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, PSEB, The Mall, Patiala.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) Sub Urban Sub Division, PSEB, Kotkapura.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for charging the amount of Rs. 64,767/- vide letter No. 301 dated 16.2.2010 to the complainant Account No. DP 30/0596 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal and unlawful notice and to restore the connection of the complainant and to refund Rs. 33,000/- deposited by the complainant vide receipt No. 430 dated 22.2.2010 and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is consumer of the opposite parties having NRS electric connection Account No. DP 30/0596 installed in the shop of the complainant. The connection is being used by the complainant for his shop exclusively for self employment of the complainant. He received letter No. 301 dated 16.2.2010 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which the demand of Rs. 64,767/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking of dated 13.2.2010 by AEE Kotkapura and JE Inspection Kotkapura on account of theft of energy. The complainant never interfered in the working of the meter. No copy of the alleged checking report has been supplied to the complainant not even with the letter of demand inspite of the fact note about the same has been given on letter of demand. No detail has been given in the letter of demand how the complainant was committing theft of energy. The meter of the complainant was installed inside the meter cupboard installed outside the premises of the complainant. On receipt of the demand notice complainant visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and requested to withdraw the said notice but they disconnected the connection of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 4.3.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act. The complainant was committing theft of energy of the opposite parties, so the present complaint is not maintainable. The present connection is being used for commercial purposes, so the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it is admitted that the present notice has been sent and the amount has been called from the complainant. The connection of the complainant was checked by SDO, Suburban Sub division, PSEB, Kotkapura alongwith his team on 13.2.2010 and during checking it was found that the present complainant had tampered with the meter. The seals of the meter were tampered. The internal part of the meter had also been tampered by the complainant which were noticeable with a naked eye. Moreover, the complainant was using the excess load than the sanctioned one. The sanctioned load is 0.96 KW whereas at that time the connected load was 3.988 KW. The checking was done in the presence of the complainant and the complainant signed the same in token of its correctness. The copy of checking report was handed over to the complainant. The complainant also moved one application dated 22.2.2010 to the opposite parties and requested that the amount be got deposited from him in two installments. In this application the complainant admitted the theft and his readiness and willingness to deposit the amount in two installments. The amount has been charged as per rules and regulations of the PSEB. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of letter No. 301 dated 16.2.2010 Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 19.2.2010 Ex.C-3, copy of receipt dated 22.2.2010 Ex.C-4, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-5and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of V.K. Bansal Ex.R-1, checking report Ex.R-2, copy of letter dated 22.2.2010 Ex.R-3 and evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order of this Forum vide order dated 6.9.2010.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant in the present case is that the allegation of theft of energy on the basis of checking report dated 3.2.2010 Ex.R-2 and consequent levy of Rs. 64,767/- vide letter dated 16.2.2010 Ex.C-2 is not proved in this case as electric meter of the complainant is installed outside the premises and has no MCB as is also clear from alleged checking report Ex.R-2. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the opposite parties and the complainant is not obliged to take care of the meter. Further, the observations as regards the status of the meter as given in the alleged checking report no conclusive proof of theft of energy is made out. No slow or improper functioning of the meter is proved as a result of alleged on the spot findings qua the electric meter. Complainant has already deposited Rs. 33,000/- vide receipt Ex.C-4 more than half of the amount demanded vide letter dated 16.2.2010 Ex.C-2 but his connection have not been restored so far.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however submitted that the electricity meter of the complainant was checked in the presence of the complainant by AEE with JE Inspection, Kotkapura and besides tampering of both the seals body of the meter was also found interfered with. Detailed observations of use of excess load were made which were endorsed by the complainant. Therefore, theft of energy is clearly proved. Still further, complainant himself made an application Ex.R-3 for accepting the charged amount of Rs. 64,767/- in two installments and pursuant thereof even deposited Rs. 33,000/- vide receipt Ex.C-4. Therefore, now he is estopped from challenging the bill in question which is based on theft confirmed by checking report proved by the checking staff on record.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant however submitted that the part payment made by the complainant already cannot be said to be voluntary deposit, rather the same was made under compulsion and as such the complainant cannot be estopped from challenging the bill in question. In support he has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh in Punjab State Electricity Board and another Versus M/s Bhanu Processors 1999 Judicial Reports Consumer-163.

11. We have anxiously considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. There is no denial of the fact that in the light of the checking report Ex.R-2 electric meter of the complainant stands installed outside his premises without MCB. However, it is difficult to accept that any other person than the complainant would interfere with the meter seals and body as per the observations recorded in the checking report Ex.R-2. Both the M&T seals of the electric meter were found tampered besides interference in the internal mechanism of the meter. Complainant was also found using excess load with detail of points noted in the aforesaid checking report. This checking report is signed by the complainant and his signatures vouchsafe the fact that he endorsed the observations referred to above as given in the checking report. Not only this, from the letter Ex.R-3 written by him to the opposite parties to accept the total amount of the bill in question in two installments confirms that he had no complaint or objection against the observations leading to clear inference of theft of energy by the complainant in the manner stated in the checking report Ex.R-2. Not only this, the complainant also deposited a sum of Rs. 33,000/- pursuant to the order of competent authority in this respect as part payment vide receipt Ex.C-4. Now in our considered opinion he cannot turn around and say that the said amount was paid by him under compelling circumstances. His signatures on the checking report can be considered to be an endorsement of the observations reported in the checking report which finds further support from his act and conduct of making an application and depositing half of the amount of the impugned bill which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be involuntary. Ruling of Bhanu Processors cited by the learned counsel for the complainant is distinguishable on facts and is not helpful to the complainant. On the other hand, checking report has been proved by Er. V.K. Bansal, SDO, Sub urban Sub Division, PSEB, Kotkapura vide his duly sworn affidavit Ex.R-1 in which he has stated among other things that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked by him with members of his staff on 13.2.2010 and during checking it was found that the complainant had tampered with the meter seals besides tampering of internal part of the meter to naked eyes. Complainant was also found using excess load as sanctioned load is 0.96 KW, whereas connected load was 3.988 KW. In this way, the theft of energy by the complainant has been proved beyond doubt. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant Chander Bhan has been found to be devoid of merits and as such the same is dismissed. However, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 18.10.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)