DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 31

Date of Institution : 03-02-2010

Date of Decision : 21-09-2010

Harkewal Singh aged 39 years s/o S Mukhtiar Singh r/o Village Sada Patti, Tehsil Jaitu, Ditrict Faridkot. ...Complainant Versus

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

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer (DS), Sub Division P S E B, Jaitu.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. Sh H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh, Adv. Ld counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Garg, Adv. Ld counsel for the Opposite Parties,

ORDER

1 Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties for charing Rs 21,086/-vide letter no 72 dated 19-01-2010 to the complainant having a/c no VF 41/0959 and for a direction to them to withdraw the illegal and unlawful amount as aforesaid and to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental tension besides payment of Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses.

2 The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the consumer of OPs and he is using domestice electric connection bearing a/c no VF-41/0959. He is paying all the electricity consumption bills as and when received by him and nothing on account of consumption is due towards him. On 19-01-2010, he received a letter bearing no 72 issued by the OP-2 in which demand of Rs 21,086/- has been raised on the basis of alleged checking of date 12-08-2010 by AEE Enforcement, Bathinda showing theft of energy and unauthorised load. The demand of the OPs is illegal and excessive and otherwise also no copy of the alleged checking report has ever been supplied to the complainant despite the fact that a note regarding enclosure of copy in this respect is given in the demand notice. It is further pleaded that disputed meter was installed at the premises of the complainant in the month of 9/2009. The load at the premises of the complainant is within the sanctioned limits and charges of unauthorised load shown in the demand letter referred to above are wrong and incorrect. It is also pleaded that complainant never interfered in the working of hte meter, which remained in the same condition in which it was installed by the OPs. Complainant has never tempered with the seals of the meter as alleged in the letter of demand rather the same seals were fixed thereupon as were there at the time of their installation. On receipt of demand notice, complainant visited the office of OP-2 and enquired about the amount demanded by OPs and also asked for copy of alleged checking report from them but no copy of alleged checking report was supplied to him. On the contrary, OP-2 threatened to disconnect his electric connection which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The act and conduct of OPs as stated above has caused great mental tension, harassment and mental agony to the complainant for which he has claimed Rs 20,000/- as compensation and has also prayed for grant of Rs 5000/- as litigation expenses.

3 Notice to OPs was issued, in response to which Sh Rajneesh Garg Advocate put in appearance on behalf of OPs and contested the complaint by way of filing written reply taking preliminary objections that OPs have constituted various Dispute Settlment Committees so as to settle the dispute between the parties, however, complainant has not put

his case before any such committee. Therefore, present complaint is not maintainable. Futher, complainant was committing theft of energy and due to this, the present complaint otherwise is not maintainable. Still further, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and as such, complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4 On merites, it is alleged among other things that the electricity connection of the complainant was checked by Engineer Ranjit Singh, AEE, Enforcement, Bathinda alongwith his staff on 12-01-2010 in the presence of Sohan Singh, brother of complainant. During checking, it was transpired that complainant has tempered with the seals of the meter and had joined them again with some adhesive material. In this way, he was committing theft of energy. The checking was done in the presence of Sohan Singh who signed the checking report in token of its correctness and has also received a copy of the checking report. The amount in question has been charged on the complainant on account of theft so committed by him. Demand notice has been issued to complianant as per rules, regulations and instructions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. In the checking report detail of the connected load is also given and calculation of payable amount has been arrived at on the basis of connected load at the spot. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied as incorrect with a prayer for its dismissal.

5 All the parties wanted to lead evidence in order to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant took many opportunities in leading evidence and while availing last opportunity, he tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.C-1 and 2, copy of notice Ex C-3, copies of bills from Ex C-4 to Ex C-9, copy of receipt no 83 Ex C-10 and then, his evidence was closed.

6 In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Amarjit Singh as Ex R-1, copy of checking report as Ex R-2, affidavit of Ranjit Singh as Ex R-3, meter Ex R-4 and closed the same.

7 We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have also considered the record on file. Ld counsel for complainant has argued that mere fact of breaking up of seals and their tempering in the stated manner, is not conclusive to prove theft of energy. Therefore, in the absence of proof of theft, demand notice of Rs 21,086/- deserves to be withdrawn rather complainant is required to be conpensated for unnecessary mental tension or harassment besides payment of litigation expenses.

8 However, ld counsel for OPs has opposed the above said contentions inter alia on the ground that checking report was made in the presence of brother of complainant named Sohan Singh. During checking not only seals of the meter were found tempered but it was also found that he joined them with some adhesive material which is a clear indicator of theft of energy by illegal means. The checking report has been proved by checking officials by way of their duly sworn affidavits. He further argued that calculation arrived at vide checking report Ex R-4 is supported by the rules, regulations and instruction given by the OPs and no fault can be found with them.

9 Having given considerable thought to the rival contentions as aforesaid in the light of evidence on record, we have found that theft of energy in the present case stands clearly proved. There is no denial of the fact that checking report is signed by Sohan Singh, brother of the complainant in whose presence, the checking in question was made on 12-01-2010 by way of his signatures on the checking report Ex R-4 said Sohan Singh acknowledged not only the factum of checking of electric conenction of complainant but also a physical status of the electric meter as noticed by the checking officer and his staff. In his affidavit Ex R-3, Er Ranjit Singh AEE, Enforcement Bathinda has specifically stated among other things that he alongwith other staff had checked the electric connection of the complainant on 12-01-2010 and during checking he found that complainant has tempered with the seals of the meter and had again joined the same with some adhesive material. Besides, he was using excessive load against the sanctioned one. The checking was done in the presence of Sohan Singh, brother of the complainant who signed the same in token of its correctness. Deponent has proved his own signatures. Complainant has not alleged or proved any enimity of Er. Ranjit Singh with him. Therefore, checking report is proved and theft of energy by the complainant in the manner stated therein also stands proved. However, the amount calculated and asked for by the OPs from complainant by way of demand notice Ex C-3 can not be supported on facts and by way of rules, regulations and instructions of PSPCL. A perusal of the photocopy of the bill dated 21-12-2009 Ex C-4 would reveal that old reading recorded on 10-09-2009 in respect of electric connection of complainant was 2, meaning thereby, the meter in respect of which theft has been proved by way of checking report dt 12-01-2010 was installed not before September 2009. However, from the perusal of the calculation as noted at the back of the checing report it is evident that charges have been made from the date prior to September 2009. As a result of this, the amount demanded from complainant can not be said to be correct. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it is essential for the OPs to issue revised demand notice keeping well in view the fact that calculation has to be arrived at from September 2009 and not prior thereto. In this view of the matter, the complaint filed by complainant/ Harkewal Singh is partly accepted with a direction to the OPs to issue revised demand notice to the complainant in the light of our observations as aforesaid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order. However, in view of peculiar circumstances of the case, there is not order as to costs. Non compliance of this order shall entail proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 21-09-2010

Member President

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