DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.156/29.9.2008 Decided on : 12.5.2009 Gurmeet Kaur wife of Sh. Kuldeep Singh, resident of V. Ramditte Wala, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. Sweet Kumar Singla, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. J.R.Gupta, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh. Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. Sh. Sarat Chander, Member. Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Pritam Singh Dhanoa, President. 1. This complaint, has been filed, by Smt. Gurmeet Kaur wife of Sh. Kuldeep Singh resident of Ramditte Wala, Tehsil and District Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') against the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter called as the board), through its Executive Engineer, Sub Urban, Sub Division, Mansa for setting aside, impugned Memo No. 2012 dated 19.6.2008, raising demand of Rs. 22,589/- refund of amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by her and for payment of compensation, in the sum of Rs. 5000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-, for filing of the complaint. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant, is as under:- 2. That the complainant got installed electric connection, bearing Account No. RD47/376, from the opposite party, in her premises, for Contd....2..... : 2 : consumption of electric energy, for her domestic purposes. Since the date of installation of electric connection, she has been making payment of amount of electricity bills, drawn upon her, by the opposite party. As such she is consumer of the electric energy, under the opposite party qua the said electric connection. No amount is outstanding towards her on account of electric charges, but the opposite party, has served notice, upon her, raising demand of Rs. 22,593/-, vide his office Memo no. 2012 dated 19.6.2008, on the allegations, that she was caught using electric energy, for construction of house. The house in occupation of the complainant is an old structure and she has not made, any renovation or any additional alteration therein, because accommodation, in the house is sufficient, for her residential purposes. It is submitted, that tariff on temporary connection, can be demanded, by the board, from the consumer of electric energy, if he secured temporary electric connection, for construction, but no such application, has been filed, by the complainant to the opposite party. It is contended, that neither checking of the premises of the complainant, has been done nor checking report was prepared at the spot. In the copy of checking report it is mentioned, that she had been using electric supply within sanctioned load, but her signatures, were secured, on blank paper by meter reader of the board, on 1.6.2008, when he visited her premises, for recording reading of her meter on the pretext, that there is defect, in the meter installed in her premises which needs to be rectified. Being approached, by the complainant, the opposite party, gave an assurance, that the impugned notice, would be withdrawn, but on 4.9.2009, officials of the board, visited her house and made an attempt to disconnect her electric supply, because of which complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 4.9.2008 and receipt no. 058 was issued, in her name, out of the receipt book No. 92946. It is submitted, that there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party, as such, impugned notice is liable to be set aside and she is entitled to the relief prayed for. Hence the complaint. Contd....3.... : 3 : 3. On being put to notice, the opposite parties, filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint, because the nature of controversy, raised by the complainant cannot be decided in summary manner by consumer fora but by Civil Court; that the complaint has not been properly verified, as such it is liable to be rejected. On merits, the factum of issuance of electric connection in the name of the complainant and raising of demand, vide Memo no.2012 dated 19.6.2008, in the sum of Rs. 22,589/-, by the opposite party, from the complainant, has not been denied. It is submitted, that on 3.6.2008, checking of the electric meter, installed in the premises of the complainant, was done by Senior Executive Engineer (Enforcement) of the board and members of his team and they found complainant, overdrawing 1.066KW of load, of electric energy, against sanctioned load of 0.52 KW and she admitting the contents of the checking report, prepared at the spot, affixed her signatures and demand has been made after provisional assessment, as per rules on the subject. It is submitted that complainant has herself deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- without any coercion. It is contended, that copy of the report was supplied, to the complainant and tariff has been rightly demanded, from her, for use of electricity, for construction purposes but she has concocted a false version and has presented, the same before this Forum with malafide intention. Rest of the averments, made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer for dismissal, of the complaint, was made with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant furnished her affidavit, Ext. C-1, and photo copy of documents Ext. C-2 to C-7 and closed her evidence. On the other hand the counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence photo copy of documents Ext. Op-1 to OP-3 and affidavit of Sh. R.K. Goel, XEN, Enforcement, Bathinda Ext.OP-4 and closed his evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone Contd....4.... : 4 : through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. At the out set, the counsel for the complainant, Sh. Sweet Kumar Singla, Advocate has submitted, that no meter reader of the board, has ever reported, that complainant, has overdrawn electric energy, beyond the sanctioned load. Learned counsel has further argued, that opposite party has not taken any plea, that all the electric points in the house of the complainant, were being used at the time of inspection of his premises and she was overdrawing the electric energy, as such, impugned notice, is not sustainable and opposite party is liable to refund, the amount deposited, from the complainant and to pay her compensation and costs as demanded in the complaint. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party, Sh. J.R. Gupta, Advocate has contended, that at the time of checking of her premises, complainant was found, using electric energy, for raising construction of her house, for which she was liable, to secure temporary connection, as envisaged in Regulation 9.1.1 of Sales Manual of the board. Learned counsel has further argued, that members of the checking team of board, had worked out actual load, on the basis of capacity of electric points, plugs, fans, electric motor and other electric gadgets and neither any enmity has been alleged, on their part nor she has taken any plea, that they have set up, false case by fabricating documents, to achieve some ulterior motive. Learned counsel has urged, that contents of affidavit of Senior Executive Officer of the board, who conducted, the checking of the electric meter, installed in the premises, of the complainant, in her presence, have gone uncontroverted, as such instant complaint, being abuse of process of the court, deserves, to be dismissed with costs. 8. Admittedly, electric connection in question has been, installed in the house of the complainant, for consumption of electric energy by the opposite party. It is also not disputed, that some amount was outstanding Contd....5... : 5 : towards the complainant, on account of electric charges before service of impugned notice upon him, by the opposite party. As per the checking report, actual load, has been worked out, on the basis of capacity and Nos. of electric points, plugs, fans, electric motor and other gadgets. It is not mentioned, in the checking report, Ext. OP-1, that all the points, fans, plugs and water motor, were in operation, at the time of checking. Therefore, we express our inability to accept the plea of the opposite, that complainant was found overdrawing electric energy, at the time of checking done by the officials of the board. The mere fact, that electric meter installed, in the premises of the complainant, was flickering, does not mean, that it so happened due to overdrawing of electric supply, by her than the sanctioned load, of 0.52 KW. It is also alleged, in the checking report, that complainant was using electric energy, for construction of her house. If, the complainant was already in existence, when electric meter, has been installed therein, then the report to this extent is puepably not correct. No proof has been produced, by the opposite party, to establish, that she had demolished her house and was reconstructing the same. It is not the case of the opposite party, that complainant, was renovating, any part of her house or was making any additions/alterations, at the time of checking. Even, if it is assumed, for the discussion that complainant, was renovating any portion of her house, she cannot be burdened, with penalty merely, because until it is established, that she was overdrawing electric energy, beyond the sanctioned load. After carefully perusing, regulation 9.1.1 of Sales Manual of the board, we have come to the conclusion, that the said provision is applicable, if temporary connection is taken, by any person, as a stop gap arrangement, till permanent connection is issued to him. As such, liability cannot be fastened, on the complainant, even if she has not secured, temporary electric connection. The commission of theft of electric energy, is a serious offence, which leads to serious consequences, as penalty may be imposed on the complainant and he may be subjected to, criminal action. As Contd....6...... : 6 : such, onus is always heavy upon the electricity board, to prove the factum of commission of theft of electric energy, by producing cogent and convincing evidence, but the opposite party has failed to, discharge, the said onus by producing evidence to our satisfaction. The raising of huge amount in an illegal and arbitrary manner is, deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party. The complainant cannot be said to be guilty of overdrawing of electric energy, even if she has deposited, part of amount, raised from her, under coercion by duress or under apprehension, that electric supply to her house may disconnected, if she failed to deposit, the amount by date stipulated in the notice. 9. In the light of our above discussion, we have come to the conclusion, that impugned notice is not sustainable, which is liable to be set aside and complainant is entitled to refund of amount deposited by the complainant and payment of adequate amount on account of compensation and costs, for filing of the complaint. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned Memo served, upon the complainant, bearing No. 2012 dated 19.6.2008 and direct the opposite party, to refund the amount of Rs. 7,500/-, if deposited, by the complainant, alognwith interest, at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 4.9.2008 till the date of payment, with further direction, to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of compensation and in the sum of Rs. 1000/- as costs of filing the complaint. The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 11. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 12.05.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
