DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.48/02.04.2008 Decided on : 19.08.2008 Gurbax Singh Singh S/o Sh. Santokh Singh, resident of Village Kharak Singh Wala, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS The Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Maur, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Desh Bandhu, counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.K.Bansal, counsel for the Opposite Party. Before: Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. Order: complainant is holder of domestic electric connection bearing Account No.B53KS230389K. He is making payment of electricity consumption bills regularly. Bill dated 15.3.2008 was issued to him for Rs.37,830/- payable by due date. Out of this amount a sum of Rs.37,016/- has been shown in the column of sundry charges. Complainant assails this demand of Rs.37,016/- as illegal. Opposite party was approached with request that this amount is illegal. He was told that in case the entire bill amount was not deposited connection would be disconnected. He alleges that act and conduct of opposite party has caused him mental tension and agony. 2) Opposite party filed his version taking the legal objection that Contd........2 : 2 : complaint before this Forum is not maintainable; complainant could approach the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate within 30 days for getting the relief by way of depositing 1/3rd of the amount; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as it is a case of theft of energy and complaint has been filed to harass him. On merits, he admits that complainant had obtained the connection. Amount had been shown due towards the complainant and he is liable to deposit it. He denies the remaining averments. 3) In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurbax Singh, complainant has tendered in its evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C-1), Bill cum Receipt dated 15.3.2008 (Ex.C-2), another bill cum receipt dated 16.5.2008 (Ex.C-3) and Receipt No.5 (Ex.C-4). 4) In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite party, Notice of Provisional Order of Assessment (Ex.OP-1), Computation Data (Ex.OP-2) and Checking report (Ex.OP-3) have been tendered in evidence. 5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have gone through the evidence. 6) Mr.Bansal, Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that it is a case of theft of energy committed by the complainant and, as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. He could knock the door of the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mansa. In our view, this contention is not tenable. Firstly as per Section 3 of the Act, its provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Learned counsel for the opposite party could not show us any provision of law according to which the jurisdiction of this Forum has been specifically barred. Moreover, matter has been set at rest by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Jharkhand State Electricity Board and another Versus Anwar Ali 2008 CTJ 837 (CP)( NCDRC) in which it has been held that Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against Final Contd........3 : 3 : Assessment Order passed by the concerned Assessing Officer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum is not barred by any provisions of the Electricity Act and is expressly saved under Section 173 read with Sections 174 and 175. In this view of the matter we are also fortified by the view of the Hon'ble State Commission, Delhi in the case B.S.E.S.Yamuna Power Limited v/s Neeraj Kumar 2007 CTJ 300 (CP) (SCDRC) in which it has been held that Consumer Forums/Commissions have jurisdiction not only to decide every kind of dispute under the Electricity Act, but have also the jurisdiction to decide any question of law arising from the provisions of that 'Act' including the dispute under Section 135 relating to the allegations of theft of energy and dishonest abstraction of energy. Accordingly, we hold that this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. 7) Opposite party is alleging theft of electricity on the part of the consumer. For this he is relying upon documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-3 which are copies of Provisional Order of Assessment, Computation Data and copy of the checking report dated 27.1.2008 respectively. Onus to prove theft of electricity is upon the opposite party. Electricity theft has to be proved by way of leading cogent evidence and not on the basis of inferences. Charge of theft, being a criminal offence, has to be proved by convincing evidence. There is no averment in the reply of the complaint as to who was heading the checking party which allegedly did the checking on 27.1.2008 and who was accompanying him. This matter has been left in lurch. Affidavits of the checking officer and the officials accompanying him have not been placed or proved on record to prove theft of electricity. Not to speak of this, even opposite party did not muster courage to produce and prove his affidavit in support of the reply of the complaint. Copy of the checking report is Ex.OP-3. According to it, joint was made in the service cable prior to the place where meter was installed in order to by pass the meter. He was committing theft of energy by Contd........4 : 4 : putting PVC from the joint in the kit kat. Report appears to have been signed by some Balbir Singh, but in the note, name of one Gurbinder has also been recorded as representative of the consumer. Opposite party has failed to establish as to how Balbir Singh is representative of the complainant. It is not known in which manner he is connected with the consumer. Parentage of Balbir Singh and his residential address are not known. Being so, we find it difficult to term him the representative of the complainant/ consumer. Equipments with which theft of electricity was allegedly committed have not been taken into possession. No reason has been assigned for not taking the photographs /making videography regarding the means of theft of electricity. When checking report has not been signed by the consumer/complainant, it has not been proved that it has been signed by his representative and the equipment with which theft of energy was being committed have not been taken in possession, demand of Rs.37,016/- on the basis of bill dated 15.3.2008 is liable to be set aside. For this view we get support from the observations of Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Charan Singh Versus P.S.E.B.(Chairman) and another 2006 (1) JRC 206. In this case there is non compliance of the provisions of Punjab State Electricity Board Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code & Related Matters) Regulations, 2007 as well. 8) In the premises written above, we are of the view that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in raising demand of Rs.37,016/- in the bill dated 15.3.2008 by way of showing it in the column of Sundry Charges is proved. Accordingly, this demand is liable to be set aside. Complainant is liable to deposit the remaining amount of the bill only. 9) Now question arises as to which relief be accorded to the complainant. As per the above discussion, direction deserves to be given to the opposite party to withdraw demand of Rs.37,016/- out of the amount Contd........5 : 5 : of bill dated 15.3.2008 copy of which is Ex.C-2 and receive the remaining amount and not to disconnect the electricity connection under the grab of non deposit of Rs.37,016/-. Act and conduct of the opposite party must have caused him mental agony and harassment for which complainant deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs.500/-. Further direction deserves to be given that if any amount out of the amount of Rs.37,016/- has been got deposited the same be refunded along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. 10) In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite party with costs of Rs.1000/-. The opposite party is directed to do as under: i) Withdraw the amount of Rs. 37,016/-out of the amount of bill dated 15.3.2008 copy of which is Ex.C-2 and not to disconnect the electricity connection in question for non payment of Rs.37,016/- ii) Pay Rs.500/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act iii) If any amount has been deposited by the complainant with the opposite party out of the amount of Rs.37,016/-, same be refunded to him along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. 11) Compliance with regard to the payment of costs and compensation be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till payment. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges and file be consigned to record. Pronounced: 19.08.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Lakhbir Singh, Member. Member. President.
