DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.209/3.12.2008 Decided on : 18.03.2009 Sh. Harinder Kumar S/o Sh. Kulwant Rai, resident of Yogesh Memorial School, College Road, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, (Sub Urban), Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.P.K.Sapolia, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.P.K. Singla, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President Sh. Harinder Kumar son of Sh. Kulwant Rai, a resident of Mansa, has filed the present complaint against Punjab State Electricity Board, (in short called the 'board'), through its Sub Divisional Officer at Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), for setting aside impugned notice vide memo No.1646 dated 10.6.2008 and pay him compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and for a further direction to the opposite party not to disconnect his electric connection installed in the premises of the school of the complainant till final decision of the complaint. Contd........2 : 2 : 2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he has secured electric connection bearing Account No.CR69/545 from the opposite party for running his school. The complainant has been regularly making payment of amount of electricity bills, drawn upon him, as such, he is consumer of electric energy under the opposite party, and nothing is outstanding towards him except the amount of impugned notice. Sh. R.K.Goyal, Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement-1 posted at Bathinda , checked the meter installed in the premises of the school of the complainant viz Yogesh Memorial School, Mansa on 22.5.2008 and wrongly reported that connected load is 10.303 KW, although the connected load was 4 KW and there is no change in the same till date of filing of the complaint. The complainant has never consumed electric energy beyond sanctioned load. On the basis of the said report given by the Engineer of the board named above, the opposite party has served notice vide letter No.1646 dated 10.6.2008 , upon the complainant raising demand of Rs.16,625/-, which is illegal against which he has made complaints on 27.5.2008 to the S.D.O. and Chairman of the board and Chairman of the Human Right Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh to the effect that false record has been prepared by the Engineer of the board. during pendency of appeal preferred by the board against order dated 29.5.2008 passed by this Forum to establish that complainant is in the habit of misusing electric energy beyond sanctioned load and to settle the revenge because of filing of previous complaint by him. The complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to service of illegal notice, as such, he is entitled to seek compensation and costs incurred by him for filing of the instant complaint from the opposite party. Hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, is not the 'consumer', within the purview of its definition Contd........3 : 3 : given in the Act, as such, complaint, is not maintainable; that complainant, has no cause of action, and locus standi, to file the complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; that his complaint, being false and vexatious, is liable, to be dismissed, with costs; that he has suppressed, the real facts, from the knowledge of this Forum; as such, he is not entitled to the relief, prayed for. On merits, the factum of installation of electric connection in the premises of the complainant in his name is not denied, but it is admitted that premises of school of the complainant was checked on 22.5.2008 by Sh. R.K.Goyal, Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement-1 and in the checking by the said officer, it was found that indicator of the electric meter installed therein was flickering because electric meter was drawing 10.303 KW of load against the sanctioned load of 4 KW. It is also submitted that complainant was present and he affixed his signatures on the checking report which was supplied to his representative, but he has failed to appear for personal hearing or to file any objection within the stipulated period. It is urged that demand raised in the sum of Rs.54,130/- vide bill dated 18.11.2008 includes previous outstanding amount towards him and impugned notice is legal and bill has been correctly issued as per rules framed by the board on the subject. Rest of the averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit, Exhibit C-1, and copies of documents Ext.C-2 to C-8 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Sh. R.K.Goyal, Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement-1 Ext.OP-1 and closed evidence after tendering copy of checking report dated 22.5.2008 Ext.OP-2. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, Contd........4 : 4 : carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. Admittedly, the electric connection under reference has been installed in the premises of the school run by the complainant in the name and style of Yogesh Memorial School, Mansa and sanctioned load thereof is 4 KW. It is also an admitted fact that opposite party has served notice Ext.C-2 dated 10.6.2008 upon the complainant raising demand of Rs.16,625/- for overdrawing electric energy to the extent of 10.303 KW. As admitted in checking report Ext.OP-2 on inspection of the premises of the school of the complainant by Sh. R.K.Goyal, Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement-1, Bathinda. The complainant has also placed on record electricity bill Ext.C-8 drawn upon him by the opposite party raising demand of Rs.54,130/- for the period 9.9.2008 to 10.11.2008. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant Sh.P.K.Sapolia, Advocate , has submitted at the outset, that complainant has filed the complaint to different authorities against the fabrication of false report by the checking officials of the board to settle the revenge against the filing of the previous complaint during the pendency of appeal preferred by the opposite party and to strengthen their case by showing that he has formed the habit of overdrawing electric energy and committing theft thereof, as such, the notice and bill served upon the complainant are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the decision given in appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order passed by this Forum in the previous complaint, which has been dismissed with costs by the Hon'ble State Commission. Learned counsel further argued that due to arbitrary and whimsical act of the opposite party and officials of the board, who conducted checking and raised illegal demand of huge amount, amounts to deficiency in service for which complainant has been subjected to physical and mental harassment and has to incur unavoidable expenses for filing the complaint, as such, impugned notice and bill are liable to be set aside and he is entitled to seek Contd........5 : 5 : compensation and costs as prayed for in the complaint. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party Sh. P.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that complainant has admitted the factum of checking of the electric meter installed in his premises in his presence by Enforcement Department of the board led by Senior Executive Engineer, Enforcement-1, posted at Bathinda and he has affixed his signatures on the checking report and copy thereof was supplied to his representative. Learned counsel argued that complainant was found overdrawing electric energy beyond the sanctioned load, as such, report submitted by the official of the board and notice served on the basis thereof cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Learned counsel further argued that no relief has been sought by the complainant regarding electricity bill for the period 9.9.2008 to 10.11.2008, served upon him, as such, neither notice nor the said bill are liable to be set aside and no malafide can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties . The complainant has filed complaints before the different authorities much after the date of checking of the premises of his school to escape liability of illegal act done by him. Learned counsel argued that no deficiency of the opposite party is proved and action has been taken by them strictly in terms of the rules framed by the board on the subject, as such, complaint cannot succeed merely because checking has been done during the pendency of the appeal preferred against the order of this Forum in previous complaint filed by the complainant. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the previous complaint, allegation of the opposite party was that electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant was defective . The perusal of the order dated 3.12.2008 passed in appeal goes to show that checking report had not been produced on record by the opposite party on the basis of which impugned notice had been issued upon the complainant, whereas in the instant case, controversy is that he was found overdrawing electric energy Contd........6 : 6 : beyond sanctioned load. Moreover, previous complaint was instituted by the complainant on 15.6.2001, but in the case in hand checking of the electric meter is alleged to have been done on 22.5.2008 i.e. after a considerable time. The complainant has not raised any protest against the contents of the report given at the spot and copy thereof has been supplied to his representative by the officials of the checking staff of the board. Therefore, complaints and representations, subsequently made by him, do not render the case of the opposite party to be suspicious. In the light of our above discussion, we are unable to accept the plea of the complainant that illegal demand has been raised upon him by the opposite party to settle the revenge against the filing of the previous complaint by him during the pendency of appeal preferred by the opposite party. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party so as to warrant the indulgence of this Forum. As such, no case is made out for setting aside the impugned notice served after checking of the electric meter installed in the premises of the school of the complainant in his presence after due compliance of the rules framed by the board on the subject . Resultantly, we dismiss the complaint and leave the parties to bear their own costs. 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: 18.03.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
