BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : CC/10/36

Date of Institution : 5.2.2010

Date of Decision : 17.9.2010

Jasvir Kaur aged about 70 years wife of S. Sadhu Singh, son of S. Mehar Singh, resident of Kotkapura Dihati, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

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

2. Punjab State Electricity Board, Kotkapura, through its Executive Engineer/XEN, Kotkapura.

2. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Urban Sub Division, Kotkapura, through its SDO, 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. J.S. Brar counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Garg counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties due to illegal demand of Rs. 16,474/- against notice issued under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 in respect of Account No. KP 54/0675 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the said notice and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is subscriber of electric connection bearing Account No. KP 54/675 installed at his residence. Sometime back block of the electric meter of the complainant was burnt due to the high voltage supplied by the opposite parties and the complainant informed the opposite party No. 3 about the said defect but the opposite party No. 3 failed to take any action about the same. Thereafter, the opposite parties illegally issued the above mentioned notice whereby false allegations of unauthorised use of energy have been leveled and amount of Rs. 16,474/- has been claimed against the complainant but in fact the complainant never used the electricity unauthorisedly. The said notice is liable to be set aside as no glass of electric meter of the complainant was broken. The complainant never used the electricity through Kundi connection. The consumption of power is consistent till the date of connection and there is no change in sanctioned and connected load. Moreover, the sanctioned load is 0.77 Kws and she is residing with her only son. The complainant has requested the opposite parties so many times to withdraw the above said illegal notice but they lingered on the matter under one pretext or the other and not withdraw the said amount, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 8.2.2010 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 such the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant was committing theft of energy of the opposite parties, so also the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was alleged among other things that the complainant was committing theft of energy in her premises by bypassing the meter. It is admitted that the present notice was issued to the complainant for depositing the present amount. The connection of the complainant was checked by SDO, Suburban Sub Division, PSEB, Kotkapura alongwith his staff members on 2.11.2009 and during the checking it was found that the complainant had tampered with the meter. The seals of the meter were broken and block of the said meter was burnt. She was using the electricity directly by bypassing the meter. The complainant had never informed the opposite parties regarding any problem in supply of the electricity. The checking was done by Er. V.K. Bansal, SDO, Suburban Sub Division, Kotkapura and the present amount has been demanded from the consumer on account of charges levied on that account. The charges have been demanded lawfully and legally. The seals of her meter were found broken on the spot when checked by SDO, Suburban Subdivision, PSEB, Kotkapura. The meter was hung on the wall and was tied up with the help of rope. The checking was done in the presence of one Bhupinder Singh who signed the same in token of its correctness and after receiving the copy of the checking report. The said amount has been charged as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties. 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, letter dated 30.3.2009 Ex.C-2, copy of memo No. 3041 dated 20.11.2009 Ex.C-3 and 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, register entry Ex.R-3 and closed their evidence.

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. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that demand of Rs. 16,474/- raised vide demand notice dated 5.11.2009 Ex.C-3 on the alleged theft of energy on the basis of checking report dated 2.11.2009 Ex.R-2 is illegal and unlawful. On 30.3.2009 complainant has filed a complaint with the opposite party No. 3 reporting the fact of burning of his meter and his intention to challenge the same requiring them to check the meter but no action was taken on 2.11.2009. The alleged checking of his electricity meter is shown and the aforesaid amount has been raised arbitrarily and illegally. In the said report even the status of the meter was not shown exactly. Still further, calculation on the back side of Ex.R-2 has been shown without any basis despite the fact that the meter was burnt down.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that the fact of burning down of the meter of the complainant is mentioned in Ex.R-3 with particular reference that his connection was disconnected. Complainant has been asked to deposit the amount however he did not deposit any amount, rather himself started steeling electricity by illegal means as mentioned in checking report Ex.R-2. In his view, checking report is fully proved on the basis of affidavit of Sh. V.K. Bansal Ex.R-2. The same stands signed by the representative of the complainant namely Bhupinder Singh whose relationship/acquittance with the complainant is not disputed. So, no fault can be found with the said report. Therefore, theft of energy by the complainant is clearly proved. Resultantly, complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant however submitted that there is nothing in the written reply filed by the opposite parties in respect of complaint filed by the complainant with the opposite party No. 3 Ex.C-2. Stance of the opposite parties in the matter in hand itself is not free from doubt and proves unfair trade practice on their part.

11. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record and have found that in para 3 of the complaint, complainant has stated among other things that block of his electric meter was burnt due to high voltage supplied by the opposite parties. Complainant informed the opposite party No. 3 about the said defect but they have failed to take any action in this respect even on receipt of said complaint, rather they wrongly and illegally issued the impugned demand notice on false allegations of unauthorised use of energy by the complainant and claiming Rs. 16,474/- from him wrongly though he has never used electricity unauthorisedly. In reply, fact of issuance of notice to the complainant has been admitted and the remaining allegation are denied being wrong and incorrect besides also submitting the allegations with regard to checking by SDO with staff members on 2.11.2009 and alleged tampering of meter by the complainant. It was specifically alleged in the reply that complainant had never informed the opposite parties regarding any problem in supply of electricity. Now she has concocted wrong and false story which is an afterthought. Surprisingly enough, contrary to the stand taken by the opposite parties in para 3 as aforesaid, copy of complaint register has been tendered by the opposite parties as Ex.R-3. In this copy, the complaints entered on 30.3.2009 including the complaint of complainant Ex.C-2 can be seen at Sr. No. 407. Against this there are clear and specific remarks to the effect that block of single phase meter of the complainant has burnt down and supply had stopped. This connection had been disconnected and he had been asked to make payment. These remarks have no separate date meaning thereby that they pertains to 30.3.2009. In the checking report this fact is not found mention. On the contrary, fact of meter having been hung on the wall and was tied up with the help of a rope has been given besides alleged direct use of electricity by the complainant by bypassing the meter. It was also mentioned that seals of the meter were broken. It is difficult to believe this, which is evidently at variance with the remarks given against the entry of complaint in the complaint register Ex.R-3. This variation may be the result of absence of visit of concerned SDO or animosity with the complainant. Therefore, in the given set of circumstances the stand of the opposite parties themselves smacks of unfair trade practice. Calculation prepared on the backside of checking report Ex.R-2 too is arbitrary and without any basis. Resultantly, the demand raised on the basis of the said checking report cannot be countenanced by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly, the opposite parties are directed to withdraw the amount of Rs. 16,474/- charged by them vide notice No. 3041 dated 20.11.2009 alongwith all the surcharges, if any and to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Any amount, if already deposited by the complainant with regard to above mentioned charges of Rs. 16,474/- vide letter No. 3041 dated 20.11.2009 with the opposite parties, be refunded to the complainant or adjusted in her next bills. In case no compliance is made out of this order, complainant shall be entitled to proceed under the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 17.9.2010

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