DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.370 of 20.9.2006<br /> Decided on: 4.12.2007<br /> <br /> Dalip Singh son of Sh.Mangal Singh, resident of village Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar,Shatrana Adda,Tehsil Patran,District Patiala.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall,<br /> Patiala.<br /> 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division, P.S.E.B., Shatrana.<br /> <br /> <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur, Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.P.S.Thind, adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Sh.Pawan Puri, adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant, Dalip Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That the complainant is having an electricity connection for agriculture purposes bearing account No.SA 1216 for irrigation of land measuring 6 Acre 6 Kanal, the load of the said connection is 15 K.W.That bill-cum-notice dated 23.8.2006 has been issued to the complainant, demanding Rs.22,000/- which is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules of natural justice. The reason for demand mentioned in the notice is that the electric motor used by the complainant is of 25 Kilowatt more than the sanctioned load of 15 Kilowatt. This reason is baseless, false and has been asserted without any checking. That the said impugned notice has been illegally issued on the report of J.E. 1 and checking dated 15.7.2006.The checking report or any other related documents have never been signed by the complainant nor he has been asked to sign such checking document by any officer of the opposite parties. That the complainant is the owner of 6 acres 6 kanal of land and there is no need for use of 25 Kilowatt electric motor for irrigation whereas electric motor of 15 K.V is more than sufficient for irrigation of this small piece of land. Moreover complainant has also been provided three hours per week irrigation water through drain by the irrigation department. So he had no need to use the bigger capacity electric motor for irrigation. That complainant has also revealed from some sources that in another checking by one Satish Kumar J.E. 1, the capacity of electric motor has been determined as of 20 K.V. which is also false and wrong. It also shows that if they have some equipment to check the capacity of electric motor that is also not correct as per guidelines of the Board. Moreover checking if any is not in the knowledge of the complainant and the checking report was never got signed from the complainant as per the provisions of the guidelines of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. The demand as has been raised is as per rules and regulations of the board. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum. The correct facts of this case are that the connection of the complainant was checked by the concerned checking officer of the board on 15.7.2006 and it was detected by the checking officer that the complainant was using the 25 BHP motor at the site and the complainant was using 10 BHP load unauthorisedly. The complainant was advised to remove the unauthorized load or to submit the fresh test report as per detected load but the complainant failed to do so. The concerned office of the board as per checking dated 15.7.2006 had directed the complainant to make the payment of Rs.22,000/-as load surcharge i.e. Rs.20,000/- as service connection charges and Rs.2000/- as ACD.The demand of the board is legal and has been raised as per rules and regulations of the board. The notice issued by the board is absolutely legal and there is no illegality in any manner. The demand has been raised as per checking dated 15.7.2006 as per report given by JE-1 who had checked the connection of the complainant. The complainant had refused to sign the checking report inspite of the fact that he was present at the site. The sanctioned load of the complainant is only 15 BHP and he was caught of using the motor of 25 BHP, so meaning thereby that he is using 10 BHP load unauthorisedly.It is correct that the connection of the complainant was again checked on 22.7.2006 and checking officer had given his report that the motor of 20 BHP is being used by the complainant. The said checking was conducted in the presence of the representative of the consumer, who had counter signed the checking report. It seems that the complainant had changed the meter which was detected of 25 BHP on 15.7.2006 by the checking officer and had installed another motor, which was found to be of 20 BHP on 22.7.2006.The demand has been raised as per rules and regulations. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.C1, copy of jamabandi, Ex.C2 and copy of bill cum notice, Ex.C3.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Jiwan Verma, Ex.R1, affidavit of Sunil Malhotra,Ex.R2,affidavit of Satish Kumar,Ex.R3, copy of checking report,Ex.R4 and copy of checking report,Ex.R5.<br /> 6. The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the connection of the complainant was checked by the checking officer of the board on 15.7.2006 who had detected at the site that the complainant was using 25BHP motor and was using 10 BHP load unauthorisdly.He has further contended that the complainant was advised to remove the unauthorized load or to submit the fresh test report as per detected load but the complainant failed to do so. She has further contended that the concerned office of the Board as per checking dated 15.7.2006 had directed the complainant to make the payment of Rs.22,000/- as load surcharge i.e. Rs.20,000/- service connection charges and Rs.2000/- as ACD vide bill cum notice,Ex.C3 dated 23.8.2006.She has further contended that the demand of the Board is legal and the same has been raised as per rules and regulations. The sanctioned load of the complainant was only 15 BHP whereas he was caught using 25 BHP motor.<br /> 8. In support of their case the opposite parties have examined Er.Jiwan Kumar Verma,SDO.He has deposed in his affidavit,Ex.R1, that the connection of the complainant is AP and the sanctioned load of the same is 15 BHP.He has further deposed that the connection of the complainant was checked by the concerned checking officer of the Board on 15.7.2006 and was detected by the checking officer that the complainant was using the 25 BHP motor at the site. He has further deposed that the complainant was using the unauthorized load of 10 BHP.He has further deposed that as per checking dated 15.7.2006 the complainant has been ordered to make the payment of Rs.22000/-.<br /> 9. Er.Sunil Malhotra,JE. Has deposed in his affidavit,Ex.R2, that the connection of the complainant was checked by him on 15.7.2006 and it was detected at the site that the complainant was using 25BHP load whereas the sanctioned load of the complainant in only <br /> 15 BHP.<br /> 10. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the opposite parties issued an illegal and arbitrary bill cum notice dated 23.8.2006,Ex.C3 demanding Rs.22,000/- on the false grounds that the electric motor used by the complainant is of 25 KW more than the sanctioned load of 15 KW.He has further contended that the report dated 15.7.2006,Ex.R4, was made in an arbitrarily manner and against the rules and regulations of the opposite parties. The said report is not signed by the complainant or his representative. It is mandatory for the checking officer to get signatures of the complainant or his representative. The report is baseless, illegal and against the rules of natural justice. He has further contended that the complainant is a small farmer and is owner of only 6 acre and 6 kanals of land as per jamabandi,Ex.C2 and water provided by the 15KW is sufficient for irrigating of the small piece of land. He has further contended that the complainant has also been supplied water for three hour per week by the irrigation department through drain for irrigation purposes which is proved by copy of jamabandi,Ex.C2.He has further contended that the complainant has no need to use the 25KW electric motor when he has sufficient source of water supply for irrigation purposes with 15 KW motor and from the water supplied by the irrigation department. He has further contended that the checking report dated 15.7.2006,Ex.R4, is also falsified by the checking report dated 22.7.2006,Ex.R5.The checking report dated 22.7.2006 made by the opposite parties shows that the complainant was using 25BHP load.<br /> 11. In support of his case the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C1.In the affidavit he has reiterated the pleas as taken in the complaint.<br /> 12. The allegation of the opposite parties is that while conducting checking on 15.7.2006 the complainant was found running a 25BHP motor against sanctioned load of 15BHP.By another checking report dated 22.7.2006,Ex.R5, the complainant is alleged to have been using a 20BHP motor. So one checking report says that complainant was using 25KW motor and another says he was using 20KW.More over in the register where the noting is made regarding the alleged checking on 15.7.2006 there are no signatures of the complainant or any of his representative. It has also not been suggested any where that the consumer or his representative has refused to sign the register in which report regarding the alleged unauthorized use of motor was recorded. The perusal of the checking report,Ex.R4, shows that it does not bear the signatures of the consumer or his representative. More over there is also no mention on the report that the consumer or his representative had refused to sign the same.<br /> 13. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/- as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:4.12.2007.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member <br /> <br /> <br />