DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No:189/30.11..2007 Decided on : 09.06.2008 Baljit Singh S/o Sh. Gurmail Singh, resident of near Petrol Pump, Ramditta Kenchian, Sirsa Road, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Sub Divisional Officer (Executive Engineer), Operation Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. Makhan Lal Jindal, counsel for the complainant. Sh.K.C.Garg, counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Baljit Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Sub Divisional Officer at Mansa (hereinafter called as opposite Party) for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to withdraw notice dated 30.10.2007 demanding Rs.46,625/- and also pay him Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation on account of mental harassment along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. Admitted facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the consumer of electricity vide electric connection bearing Account No. Contd........2 : 2 : SA33/727 , which had been obtained by him for running a Dhaba for earning his livelihood. The opposite party had issued the impugned notice No. 2489 dated 30.10.2007 amounting Rs.46,625/- to the complainant on account of compensation regarding theft of energy. The demand has been challenged by the complainant on the ground that the same is illegal as no checking was ever conducted by the opposite party in his presence, nor he had committed any theft of energy. The OP is thus stated to be deficient in service causing mental harassment. Hence this complaint. The Opposite party in its written version has challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the demand relating to theft of energy, this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Further that, the complainant is not their consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the electric connection is being used for commercial purposes. On merits, it was contended that the officials of the Op Board had checked the electric connection of the complainant on 22.10.2007 and the complainant was caught red handed while committing theft of energy by disconnecting the supply from main PVC wire and extracting energy by illegal means. At the spot the complainant was also found using excess load of 4.186 KW instead of his sanctioned load of 1.68 KW. The checking was done in the presence of the representative of the complainant, who was alleged to have signed the report. A copy of the checking report was handed over to him on the spot. It was denied that the demand was in any way illegal and the opposite party was deficient in service towards the complainant. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. Contd........3 : 3 : Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and other documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the entire evidence placed on record by them. The perusal of the checking report, copy of which is exhibit C-3, indicates that the complainant was alleged to be found using electricity by disconnecting the supply from main PVC wire and extracting energy by illegal means at the spot. The checking report is duly signed by the official of the Board. At the place of the signatures of the consumer/his representative, signatures of one Leela has been obtained. The complainant has strongly disputed this signatory on the ground that he has no relation with this Leela and the checking was never done in his presence nor in the presence of any responsible official of the consumer. As such, the penality imposed by the opposite party is highly arbitrary. OP Board could not prove the identity of the alleged Leela with the complainant to establish that Leela, the signatory of the checking report, has in any way any link with the complainant. To support his view, the counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.(HVPN) versus Gautam Plastic, I (2008)CPJ 62 (NC), wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that, Checking not done either in presence of consumer or responsible officials. Principles of natural justice not followed. Penalty levied unilaterally. In the case in hand also the checking of the meter was not done either in the presence of the consumer or responsible officials of the consumer. Thus it is clear that principles of natural justice had never been Contd........4 : 4 : followed by the OP Board. The allegation of theft of energy having not been proved, the complainant is thus not liable to pay the amount of Rs.46,625/- demanded from him by the OP Board on this account. The letter dated 2489 ( Exhibit C-2) demanding Rs.46,625/- is liable to be withdrawn by the Board. In view of the aforesaid facts, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the opposite party to withdraw the letter dated 2489 demanding Rs.46,625/- on account of theft of energy and refund the amount of Rs.10,000/-, if deposited by the complainant in compliance of the interim order passed by this Forum on 30.11.2007. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 09.06.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
