DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No. CC /10/28  of     11.1.2010

                                                Decided on: 19.10.2010

Gurdeep Singh S/o Sh.Sukhdev Singh R/o Village Boran Kalan, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                       Versus       

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

     Secretary.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board

      SubDivision Nabha(Rural), District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.                                   

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.Inderjit Singh, President

                                      Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh. H.S.Dhillon,  Advocate   

For opposite parties:     Sh. Pawan Puri, Advocate

                                         ORDER

SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                                      Complainant Gurdeep 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.

2.                                   As per averments made in the complaint the case

of   the complainant is like this:-

                                      That the complainant is having agricultural electric motor connection bearing No.2BB=211 of 7.5 BHP issued by opposite parties in the name of complainant on 24.9.2009 under OYT scheme. The complainant is paying the bills regularly and there is no arrear of any kind. The complainant is using the electricity supplied by opposite parties. That as per the alleged notice No.2538 dated 18.12.2009, which was received by the complainant from the opposite party no.2 in which on 12.10.2009 the Xen Enforcement Wing, Patiala has checked the electric motor connection of the complainant and  prepared this false notice because at the time of checking the said electric connection the Xen Enforcement Wing, Patiala had not called the complainant as well as other family member and other respectable members of the village and wrongly assessed Rs.75923/- for theft of electricity from 24 hours electricity line and other compounding charges etc., but the complainant never used the said electric motor connection from 24 hours electricity line. That after the receipt of above mentioned notice complainant went to the office of opposite party no.2 and met the officials of Board of Sub Division, Nabha(Rural) and requested them to waive the alleged theft penalty and other charges, but they flatly turned down the genuine request of the complainant and threatened the complainant that whether the checking is true or false you just deposit the amount of penalty, otherwise the connection will be disconnected within a week. That the alleged checking dated 12.10.2009 is totally wrong and false as it is contrary to the actual facts as neither the complainant using the electric motor connection through 24 hours supply of electricity or any kundi or any other illegal means have ever been adopted by the complainant. The complainant was never called by the opposite parties at the time of alleged checking the said electricity motor connection. That the act of the opposite parties is totally wrong, vague, illegal, ultravires, totally misuse of power and position, restorted to unfair trade practice as they are selling the monopoly item of electricity, their actions are biased against the genuine consumer and against principles of natural justice, as the consumer has never been given any opportunity to represent his case. That the alleged checking report dated 12.10.2009 and letter No.2538 dated 18.12.2009 and the illegal demand raised vide notice U/s 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 are totally wrong, vague, illegal, null and void as such are liable to be quashed. That the opposite parties from the beginning remained biased against the genuine claim of the complainant and till now remained failed to redress the grievances of the complainant, hence the opposite parties remain deficient in their services towards the complainant and complainant has suffered mentally as well as physically as such the complainant is entitled to damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.                                   Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant and his father namely Sukhdev Singh are the consumers of the Board for Agricultural Power Connections i.e. 4 connections and the said connections were checked by the Enforcement Wing of the Board consisting of Senior Executive Engineer/Enforcement-1, P.S.E.B., Patiala alongwith AEE/Enforcement, Junior Engineer/Enforcement in the presence of  concerned S.D.O. Suburban Sub /Division and Junior Engineer of Operation Sub Division, Nabha on 12.10.2009 and it was detected that the complainant and his father namely Sukhdev Singh are unauthorizedly using the supply for his agricultural power motors from 24 hours service lines of the Board. The manner and method of committing unauthorized use of electricity supply by the complainant and his son have been duly explained by the checking team in the checking report. The representative of the consumer namely Kaka Singh, who is the son of Lambardar of the village Kakrala was present at the site at the time of checking the connection and he had also thumb marked the checking report in token of correctness of such checking by the Enforcement Wing of the Board. The wire with the aid of which, the consumer was committing theft of energy i.e. by making extension for taking the unauthorized supply from 24 hours service line of the Board was removed from the site  and the same was taken in possession by the checking team. The same has been handed over to the concerned Junior Engineer of the Sub Division for keeping the same in the safe custody of Sub Division o f Board. The assessing officer of the Board on receipt of the report from the checking team had issued a notice to the consumer under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 vide which demand of Rs.75923/- was raised against the consumer for committing theft of electricity energy and out of the said amount Rs.16000/- was charged as compounding charges in case the consumer intends to compound the offence of theft of energy. The consumer was directed to file the objections before the competent authority of the Board i.e. S.E.Patiala if he so desires. The complainant filed the objections before the S.E.patiala on 23.10.2009.The S.E.Patiala issued the notice to the complainant for personal hearing and appearance before him on 30.11.2009 and the complainant was provided the opportunity to defend himself before the said authority i.e. SE,Patiala.The father of the complainant namely Sh.Sukhdev Singh had appeared before the S.E.Patiala on behalf of the complainant and he was heard in person by the S.E.Patiala and after considering the plea taken by the consumer through his father, before the assessing officer (S.E.Patiala), the objections filed by the complainant and also the checking reports as have been given by the flying squad of the Board, the S.E.Patiala being the assessing officer has arrived at the conclusion that the complainant was caught of committing theft of electricity energy and the demand has been rightly raised by the concerned office of the Board. There is absolutely no illegality in raising the demand. It is denied that the checking report has been falsely prepared by the Enforcement Wing of the Board. It is denied that the complainant was not called at the time of checking the connection. In fact, the representative of the complainant was present at the site at the time of checking the connection and the checking was conducted in his presence. The said representative of the complainant namely Kaka Singh had also thumb marked the checking report in token of correctness of such checking. It is denied that the demand has been wrongly assessed by the checking officer.It is denied that the complainant never used the said electric motor connections from 24 hours electricity line of the Board. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had filed the objections against the notice vide which demand was raised by the Board. It is denied that it was informed to the complainant by the concerned officials of the Board that the complainant is required to deposit the amount, whether the checking is true or false. In fact, the complainant was advised to file the objections, if he has any grievance regarding the same. It is denied that the checking is wrong or is contrary to the actual facts or the complainant was not using the electric motor connection through 24 hours supply of electricity or no other illegal means has ever been adopted by the complainant. In fact, the complainant was caught red handed of using the supply from 24 hours electricity lines of the Board for his motor connections as has been fully described in the checking report. It is denied that any act of the opposite parties is illegal or wrong etc. There is neither any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties nor there is any deficiency in service. There is no violation of principles of natural justice. The complainant was heard in person through his representative and father namely Sh.Sukhdev Singh by the S.E.Patiala being the assessing officer to pass the orders under Section 135 of the Act.There is no illegality in any action of either the checking officers or the concerned office of the Board. The assessing officer has rightly any legally passed the final orders of assessment. It is denied that the opposite parties from the beginning remained biased against the genuine claim of the complainant and till now remained failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is denied that the complainant has suffered mentally as well as physically or the complainant is entitled to damages. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.

4.                                   The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record.

5.                                   The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                                   The complainant is admittedly an electricity consumer against agricultural electric motor connection bearing No.2BB-211 of 7.5 BHP.At the time of checking , the checking staff found the complainant and his father namely Sukhdev Singh unauthorizedly using the supply for their agricultural power motors from 24 hours service lines of the Board. These facts have been corroborated by the officials who filed their affidavits,Exs.R2 of Er.Sanjay Mittal, Sr.Executive Engineer, R3 Er.R.Chopra,Asstt.Executive Engineer and R4 Er.Jaswant Singh,JE. They are not shown to have any illwill or enmity against the complainant or his son so as to make a false report. The theft of electricity from the 24 hours service line of the Board was being facilitated by the complainant and his son for unauthorizedly using the supply for their agricultural power motors. In the report,Ex.R7 the detail of the load being used by the complainant as well as his son has been given and the same has not been controverted.The perusal of the checking report,Ex.R5 would further show that the checking was effected in the presence of Kaka Singh who had thumb marked the checking report in token of its correctness. Therefore, raising of the demand on account of theft of energy by the recorded consumer as well as his son would not be deficiency of service.

7.                                   Therefore, the complaint is dismissed being without any merit. In the peculiar circumstances however,parties to bear their own costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

                                      File be consigned to the record.

Pronounced.

Dated:19.10.2010.

                                                                             President

                                                                             Member

                                                                             Member