BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : CC/10/2

Date of Institution : 4.1.2010

Date of Decision : 22.7.2010

Ganga Ram aged about 75 years s/o Sh. Brij Lal, resident of Mohalla Khokhran, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

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

2. Assistant Executive Engineer (DS) City Subdivision, PSEB, Faridkot.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Ranjit Singh counsel for the complainant.

Sh. M.S. Brar counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for charging the amount of Rs. 22,750/- as sundry charges charged in the bill issued on 23.12.2009 to the complainant Account No. ML 59/0137 and for directing the opposite parties to withdraw the illegal and unlawful amount charged as sundry charges and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is the consumer of the opposite parties having a domestic electric connection bearing Account No. ML 59/0137 running in the premises of the complainant. He received bill issued on 23.12.2009 in which sundry charges of Rs. 22,750/- have been charged illegally and unlawfully. No notice has been received by the complainant about the sundry charges charged in the bill. Moreover, as per instructions of the Board no such amount is to be charged in the bill through sundry and only separate bill is to be rendered. No detail of the amount charged was ever furnished to the complainant. On receipt of the above said bill, he visited the office of the opposite party No. 2 and enquired about the charges levied through sundry but no detail of the charges was supplied to the complainant. The charges are illegal, unlawful and against the instructions of PSEB. He again approached the opposite party No. 2 and requested to withdraw the illegal and unlawful charges but they flatly refused to do so and threatened to disconnect the connection of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 6.1.2010 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 this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as the amount sought to be charged relates to compensation on account of theft of energy which can only be challenged before the appropriate competent authority as prescribed by the Electricity Act, 2003, so the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. He has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed all the material facts. He is not entitled to any relief from this Forum and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The connection of the complainant located in Mohalla Khokhran Faridkot was checked on 13.12.2008 by the Task Force consisting of Er. Pritpal Singh Sandhu SDO City Sub Division, PSEB, Faridkot alongwith Sh. Som Nath JE and Subhash Chander AJE of City Sub Division, Faridkot in the presence of the complainant. During the course of checking, it was found that complainant was committing theft of energy by illegal and dishonest means by tapping the service wire passing along his house by inserting a 'Kundi' and electricity supply was being used for domestic purpose by the complainant. It was declared a case of theft of energy. Checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of the complainant which is duly signed by all the checking staff. Copy of the checking report was also supplied to the complainant at the spot but he refused to sign. However, he did not raise any objection against the checking at the spot or thereafter. Notice bearing No. 547 dated 27.2.2008 was issued to the complainant demanding amount of Rs. 20,790/- on account of compensation for theft of energy but the complainant did not deposit the amount inspite of issue of the notice. The amount was subsequently charged in the bill issued on 11/2009. No amount has been charged in the bill in question through sundry and this amount relates to arrears of previous bills. On merits, it was alleged among other things that huge amount of arrears of previous bills relating to consumption charges is outstanding against the complainant which he has not paid. It is admitted that the amount of Rs. 20,390/- has been charged in the bill through sundry charges when the complainant failed to deposit the amount demanded through the notice referred above. The amount has been rightly charged. The demand is legal, lawful and as per instructions of PSEB, 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, copy of bill dated 23.12.2009 Ex.C-2, supplementary affidavit of complainant Ex.C-3, copy of receipt No. 584 Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of P.S. Sandhu Ex.R-1, copy of checking report dated 13.12.2008 Ex.R-2, calculation statement Ex.R-3, sundry charges allowance register Ex.R-4, notice No. 547 dated 27.2.2009 Ex.R-5, affidavit of P.P. Sandhu AEE Ex.R-6, affidavit of Som Nath JE Ex.R-7 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 the action of the opposite parties for charging Rs. 22,750/- as sundry charges in the bill dated 23.12.2009 issued to the complainant Ex.C-2 in respect of his account number on the ground of alleged checking dated 13.12.2008 Ex.R-2, finding tapping of energy by him through 'Kundi' (hook) connection is illegal as is evident from checking report itself that all the seals were found OK. The allegations of tapping of energy from the electric line passing besides his house are baseless as because it cannot be done without disconnecting the meter supply. In this respect, report is silent. He further argued that otherwise also the procedure laid down in the regulations 37 (e) and (f) of The Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters), Regulations, 2007 has not been followed in view of specific remarks of refusal to sign in Ex.R-2. Sanctioned load and connected load has been noted as the same without giving detail of points which belies the very visit and in respect of electric connection of the complainant. Checking report is also doubtful in view of the fact that AEE has been shown as Inspecting Officer, Sadiq and in para 2 of the written statement there is allegation of checking of SDO City. Moreover, no artificial means allegedly used for tapping of energy was seized or taken into possession nor produced in the Forum. Calculations has also been made on the basis of 100% in disregard of the fact that in the case of domestic connection it was to be made at 30%.

9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that position as to the status and capacity of Inspecting Officer is made clear by the checking report Ex.R-2 and affidavit of Pritpal Singh Sandhu Ex.R-6. He further argued that in the manner in which the energy was being tapped the electric supply was not consumed through meter. He also argued that meter was found installed inside the premises of the complainant. He was issued provisional notice Ex.C-2 but he did not file any objection nor made any representation to challenge the same. No enmity of Inspecting Officers/Officials who have supported the checking by way of their duly sworn affidavit Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-7 has been either alleged or proved. Therefore, theft of electricity is proved by the opposite parties by way of overwhelming evidence. He further argued that mere refusal of the complainant to sign the documents by itself is no ground to suspect the fairness of inspection. In this respect, heavy reliance has been placed upon judgment of Uttari Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. Versus Karam Chand 2010 (2) CLT-3.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant however submitted that written statement is silent in respect of posting of Er. Pritpal Singh Sandhu AEE in the City, therefore his status as AAE, Sadiq/checking officer and as SDO City Sub Division are irreconcilable. Further, in notice Ex.R-5 the amount payable has been calculated as Rs. 20,790/- whereas in the bill the same is noted as Rs. 22,750/-. These amounts are also irreconcilable.

11. We have considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. In this case the demand in the bill Ex.C-2 as sundry charges has been raised on the basis of theft of energy as was found by Er. Pritpal Singh Sandhu AAE, Operation Sub Division, Sadiq now AEE City Sub Division, Faridkot on the basis of checking report Ex.R-2. Checking report has been proved by the said officer by way of his duly sworn affidavit Ex.R-6 and Sh. Somnath JE City Sub Division, PSEB, Faridkot by his duly sworn affidavit Ex.R-7. In para 1 of the said affidavit Sh. Pritpal Singh Sandhu has specifically stated that the domestic connection of the complainant located in Mohalla Khokhran, Faridkot was checked on 13.12.2008 by the Task Force headed by him alongwith Sanjeev Kumar JE Operation and Sh. Somnath JE in the presence of the complainant. During the course of checking it was found that the complainant was committing theft of energy by tapping the service wire passing alongside his house by inserting a 'Kundi' and the electric supply was being used for domestic purpose bypassing the energy meter. Checking report was prepared at the spot in the presence of the complainant and copy thereof was also supplied to the complainant at the spot but he refused to sign the same. He has been supported in this respect by Sh. Somnath JE vide his affidavit Ex.R-7. The posting of Pritpal Singh Sandhu as AAE Operation Sub Division, Sadiq and thereafter AEE City Sub Division, Faridkot stands sufficiently proved by way of his affidavit Ex.R-6 and his position as SDO City Sub Division, PSEB as per allegations in para 2 of the written statement. Therefore, checking dated 13.12.2008 is not belied in view of mere non production of his posting orders after the checking on or before 16.3.2010 while submitting written reply. Similarly, mere refusal to sign the checking report by the aforesaid officers on the allegations of complainant refusal to sign does not give rise to suspicion as to its genuineness and fairness particularly, when report itself bears endorsement made by inspection team that the consumer refused to sign the documents. In this connection, judgment of Karam Chand cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is clear and can be referred to with advantage.

12. There is sufficient evidence on record as noted above to prove the theft of energy by the complainant by use of illegal means. So, seizure of wire and its production in the Forum by the opposite parties cannot be emphasized. However, from the observations/remarks in the checking report Ex.R-2 it is not clear as to whether there was abstraction of energy through the meter or by any other mode bypassing the electricity meter which is admittedly in existence in the premises of the complainant. In our view, charging at the rate of 30% was required instead of 100% as has been done in the present case. Still further, the amount of Rs. 20,790/- as given in the provisional assessment order Ex.R-5 and amount as mentioned in bill Ex.C-2 to the tune of Rs. 22,750/- are irreconcilable. Therefore, opposite parties are required to issue fresh notice of proper calculations with clarification as to amount in Ex.R-5 and bill Ex.C-2.

In view of our above observations and findings, complaint filed by the complainant is partly accepted and demand raised vide bill dated 23.12.2009 Ex.C-2 as sundry charges amounting to Rs. 22,750/- is quashed and opposite parties are directed to issue fresh bill as per the LDHF formula on the basis of 30% factor, within the period of one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. In the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Any amount, if already deposited by the complainant with regard to above mentioned charges of Rs. 22,750/- vide bill dated 23.12.2009 with the opposite parties, be adjusted in his fresh bill and subsequent 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 order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 22.7.2010

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