DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 46 of 19-02-2007<br /> Decided on : 15-05-2007 <br /> <br /> Banarasi Dass S/o Sh. Gajjan Mal, R/o New Basti, Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2.. A.E.E./S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Raman Mandi, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Ashok Gupta, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite party : Sh. Abhey Singla, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to quash the demand of the arrears to the tune of Rs. 19,760/- and Surcharge of bill dated 22.12.06; refund the amount deposited by him under compelled circumstances alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of deposit till realisation; pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages on account of mental tension, agony and loss of reputation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass as under :<br /> 3. He is holder of electricity connection bearing A/c No. NB-43/0287 installed at his premises at Raman Mandi. He was depositing the electricity consumption charges regularly. Nothing was due against him. Bill dated 22.12.06 for Rs. 20,480/- including Rs. 19,760/- as arrears was received by him. Nature of the arrears was not disclosed. On enquiry, he was assured by opposite party No. 2 that he would look into the matter. Complainant expressed his willingness to deposit the current consumption charges at this stage. He was further assured that matter would be enquired into and he would be asked accordingly to deposit the amount. He was further told that electricity connection would not be disconnected. Accordingly, he kept mum. Despite all this, officials of opposite party No. 2 visited his premises for disconnection of the electricity connection for non-payment of the amount. He managed to restrain them from doing it. He again approached opposite party No. 2. His attitude was in-different and threat was extended that in case amount is not deposited, electricity connection would be disconnected. Complainant assails the demand of Rs. 19,760/- raised by the opposite parties as illegal, null and void, inoperative and not binding upon him on the grounds that no checking whatsoever was made by the officials of the opposite parties; no opportunity of being heard was afforded; no demand was ever raised vide separate memo and the amount of Rs. 19,760/- has been charged straightway in the bill dated 22.12.06. His request for quashing the demand was turned down. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 4. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands; he was found abstracting energy by unauthorised means and as such, he does not fall within the definition of consumer and that complaint is time barred. On merits they admit that electricity connection has been installed in the premises of the complainant. Bill dated 22.12.06 for Rs. 20,480/- was issued. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 19,760/- was shown as arrears. Inter-alia their plea is that connection was checked by Task Force, Maur on 8.6.01 in the presence of the complainant. Detailed checking report No. 76/36 dated 8.6.01 was prepared. It was found by Task Force that complainant had tampered the body and glass of the meter from two places. Rubber gas kit was found cut from two places. It was found to be a case of theft of electric energy. On the basis of checking, memo bearing No. 1156 dated 15.6.01 for Rs. 18,588/- was issued for theft of energy. Later on, some deficiency was found while calculating the amount mentioned in the memo and that is why the amount was revised to Rs. 11,533/-. Instead of depositing the amount, complainant requested for referring the matter to Dispute Settlement Committee. Approval for this purpose was sought from the office of Executive Engineer (Operation) PSEB, Bathinda, which was accorded by him vide letter No. 8473 dated 30.4.02. Meter from the premises of the complainant was removed on 7.10.03 in his presence. It was packed in card board box. Paper seals No. 6242 and 6243 were affixed on the card board box in which meter was packed. Paper seals so fixed were got signed from the complainant. Packed meter was sent to M.E. Laboratory on 30.11.04 vide challan No. 107. It was checked in the M.E. Laboratory in the presence of the complainant. On checking, glass of the meter was found tampered at two places marked as A & B in the M.E. Laboratory checking report at page No. 45 of Book No. 19. Thereafter meter was opened and checked from inside. It was found that gas kit of the glass was badly cut from mark A & B shown in the checking report. Scratches were also found on number plate of the meter. Checking staff concluded that complainant was controlling consumption of electric energy by tampering glass of the meter in an unauthorised manner. Hence, it was a case of theft of energy. Detailed report in this regard was prepared by the officials of the M.E. Laboratory in the presence of the complainant which was signed by him after admitting the same as correct. Subsequently matter was also decided by Dispute Settlement committee vide its order dated 20.8.04. Despite issuance of repeated letters, complainant did not attend the hearing before Dispute Settlement committee. It being so, matter was decided by it exparte on 20.8.04. It is further added by them that in the month of April, 2002, complainant was issued bill for Rs. 13,486/- which included Rs. 11,533/- as charges on account of theft of electric energy based on checking report dated 8.6.01. It was specifically mentioned in the bill that in case of non-payment, an amount of Rs. 1339/- would be charged on this amount. Fresh bill for Rs. 14,825/- was issued in June, 2002. A sum of Rs. 17,541/- remained unpaid. It was included in the next bill as arrears. In the same manner, complainant was issued bill for February, 2002 for Rs. 32,720/-. Rs. 47/- were to be charged as surcharge in case of non-payment of total dues. Then account of the complainant was overhauled as computer was charging surcharge every time on whole amount of bill due to non-payment of part of the bill. A credit of Rs. 15,265/- was given to the complainant and a bill for Rs. 17,480/- was issued in April, 2006 which included Rs. 11,533/- as ordered by Dispute Settlement Committee. This amount of Rs. 11,533/- was to be recovered on account of theft of electric energy. In case of non-payment, an amount of Rs. 46/- was to charged in June, 2006. He was issued bill for Rs. 18,130/- which included Rs. 17,526/- as arrears of bill of April, 2006. Complainant did not make payment of the bill and as such Rs. 18,185/- were added in the bill issued for August, 2006 including Rs. 55/- as surcharge for non-payment of bill. Similarly, complainant was issued bill for Rs. 19,760/- in October, 2006 including Rs. 70/- as surcharge incase of non-payment of bill. This bill included Rs. 19,030/- as arrears. In December, 2006, he was issued bill for Rs. 20,480/- which included arrears of Rs. 19,760/- which has been challenged. They deny that demand raised is illegal, null and void and against law and facts on the grounds mentioned in the complaint. Further they refute remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. In support of his averments in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2) and photocopy of bill dated 22.12.06 (Ex. C-3).<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Sh. Parm Pal Singh, S.D.O. (Ex. R-1), photocopy of memo No. 1156 dated 15.6.01 (Ex. R-2), photocopy of M.E. Lab report (Ex. R-3), photocopy of order dated 20.8.04 (Ex. R-4), photocopy of letter dated 30.4.02 (Ex. R-5), photocopy of account statement (Ex. R-6) and photocopies of ledger (Ex. R-7 to Ex. R-10) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite parties.<br /> 8. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant urged that demand of Rs. 19,760/- raised by the opposite parties by showing it in the column of arrears in the bill dated 22.12.06, copy of which is Ex. C-3 is illegal, null and void as no separate memo has been issued and nature of the demand has not been disclosed. He further submitted that nothing is outstanding against the complainant. For this, he drew our attention to the affidavits of the complainant which are Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2.<br /> 9. Mr. Singla, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that complainant was not paying the electricity consumption bills. He was in arrears. On that account, amount of Rs. 19,760.0 became arrears of the bills. Accordingly, there was no need to give details of arrears particularly when complainant was receiving the bills from time to time and he was aware of the amount which was not being deposited by him.<br /> 10. We have considered the respective arguments and we feel inclined to to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Material question for determination is as to whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in raising the demand of Rs. 19,760/- in the impugned bill dated 22.12.06. Reply to our mind is in the negative. Ex. R-6 clinches the matter. It is account statement of the electricity connection concerning the account of the complainant from 6/2002 to 10/2006. A perusal of this document reveals that several bills were sent to the complainant, Amount of some of them was not being deposited by him. Accordingly amount was being shown as recoverable. After adjusting the amount deposited by the complainant upto April, 2006, balance towards the complainant came to Rs. 17,526/-. Thereafter bills for the cycles of 6/2006, 8/2006 and 10/2006 were issued. Complainant did not deposit the amount of these bills. In this manner, recoverable amount towards him came to Rs. 19,760/- which has been shown in the impugned bill dated 22.12.06. In these circumstances when complainant was receiving the bills and he has not made payment of some of them, it does not lie in his mouth that separate memo should have been issued to him before raising the impugned demand. Complainant alleges that no opportunity of being heard was afforded. In our view, he is not entitled to opportunity of being heard particularly when it is not a case that he was unware of the due amount. He was receiving the bills. Payments of some of them have not been made by him. Accordingly unpaid amount continued accumulating. Account was overhauled and debit balance of Rs. 19,760/- has been found. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 11. In the result, complaint is meritless and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 15-05-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member