DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 59 of 05-03-2007<br /> Decided on : 05-06-2007<br /> <br /> Harmander Singh S/o S. Mukand Singh Village Kot Bakhtu, District Bathinda.<br /> <br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Raman, District Bathinda, through its S.D.O./A.E.E.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. K.S. Brar, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. J.P.S. Brar, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') which has been preferred by the complainant with the prayer that opposite parties be directed to withdraw memo No. 75 dated 5.2.07; refund the amount alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of deposit till realisation in case it is deposited on the basis of this notice; pay Rs. 30,000/- as damages on account of mental tension and agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass as under :-<br /> 3. Complainant is holder of domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No. KB-71/0247 with sanctioned load of 4.76 KW installed at his residential house situated in village Kot Bakhtu. He has been paying the electricity consumption bills regularly. Memo No. 75 dated 5.2.07 was issued by opposite party No. 2 on the basis of alleged checking by Assistant Executive Engineer, Flying Squad whereby demand of Rs. 87,957/- has been raised on the allegation that he was found indulging in theft of electricity by making joint in the PVC under the meter board. He approached the opposite parties to withdraw the notice/memo, but to no effect. He assails the demand as illegal, null and void, excessive and against law and facts on the grounds that he was not indulging in theft of energy; construction of the house was old one and it was unfit for human habitation. In order to reconstruct the same, he had started demolition work. During this process, meter board had fallen down. Same was kept inside under the impression that it would be got fitted/installed on completion of the construction. During this period, official of the opposite parties visited his house. On seeing the meter lying inside, they got annoyed and told that prior permission was not taken. Demand has been raised under political pressure. No criteria for raising it has been mentioned in the memo. Rather straightway it has been raised. Checking was not conducted by the competent person and as per rules. No independent person was joined at the time of alleged checking. Copy of the checking report was not supplied to him. Electricity connection was being checked in routine by the officials and at no point of time he was found committing theft of energy. No specific period has been mentioned about the alleged theft and about the period for which impugned demand has been raised. Even at the time of alleged checking, meter was lying unused. Connection is domestic one and no business activity was conducted. His average bi-monthly bills were not exceeding Rs. 600/700. Opposite parties are compelling him to deposit the amount. They have further extended threat that in case of non-payment, connection would be disconnected. Act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused him mental tension and agony. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 4. Opposite parties filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as matter in dispute pertains to theft of electricity; complainant has not come with clean hands; complaint is false and frivolous; Dispute Settlement Committees of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Here-in-after referred to as `Board') have already been constituted to decide such cases. On merits, they admit that electricity connection is in the name of the complainant and sanctioned load is 4.76 K.W. Inter-alia their plea is that he was caught red handed while committing theft of electricity. Checking memo was prepared at the spot and he has appended his signatures after admitting it as correct. He is liable to pay Rs. 87,957/-. They deny deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on their part and the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Retail Invoice (Ex. C-2), photocopy of Notice (Ex. C-3) and photocopies of bills (Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6).<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties, affidavit of Sh. Parampal Singh, S.D.O. (Ex. R-1), photocopy of Notice of provisional order (Ex. R-2), photocopy of checking register (Ex. R-3) and copy of detail of calculation (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite parties.<br /> 8. Arguments pressed into service by Mr. Brar, learned counsel for the complainant are that demand raised by the opposite parties through provisional order of assessment, copy of which is Ex. C-3 is illegal, null and void as copy of the checking report was not supplied. Complainant was not indulging in theft of electricity. Complainant was made to sign blank format on which checking report was subsequently prepared. No specific period has been mentioned about the alleged theft. Affidavits of the officials who checked the connection have not been placed and proved on record and that simple affidavit of Sh. Parampal Singh, S.D.O. which is Ex. R-1 is not sufficient to prove theft of electricity. To support his submission, reliance has been placed on the authorities Charan Singh Vs. P.S.E.B. (Chairman) & Another I(2006) CPJ 447, Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Devender Singh 2001(1) CLT 371 and Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Rekhaben S. Jha 2005(1) CLT 641.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that the checking of the connection was done by the officials of the Board on 5.2.07 in the presence of the complainant and complainant was found indulging in theft of energy. He was using electricity by connecting direct wire below the meter board. Sanctioned load of the complainant is 4.866 KW. He was using unauthorised temporary additional load to the extent of 5.830 KW. Total load which was being used was 10.696 K.W. He further submitted that mere fact that affidavits of the officials who conducted the checking are not on record would assume no significance particularly when complainant was present at the time of checking and he signed checking report, copy of which is Ex. R-3. Further more, Sh. Parampal Singh, S.D.O. has produced on record his affidavit Ex. R-1 regarding the fact that complainant was caught red handed while committing theft of electricity. Amount of Rs. 87,957/- has been demanded on the basis of provisional order of assessment as per commercial circular No. 53/2006.<br /> 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.<br /> 11. Checking of the electricity connection by the officials of the Board does not remain in dispute in this case as complainant himself has averred in the complaint that construction of his house was an old one and that in order to reconstruct it, he had started demolishing it. During this period, officials of the opposite parties had visited his house and on seeing the meter lying inside unused, they got annoyed and raised impugned demand on false allegations. Copy of the checking report is Ex. R-3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant admits that the checking report bears the signatures of the complainant but his signatures were obtained when the proforma was blank. Provisional order of assessment vide impugned memo dated 5.2.07 was sent to the complainant on 5.2.07 raising demand of Rs. 87,957/-. Complaint before this forum was presented by the complainant on 5.3.07. In case demand was illegal and he was not indulging in theft of energy, he would have raised din and noise atleast immediately after the receipt of impugned memo dated 5.2.07. In view of the averments in the complaint, signatures of the complainant on the checking report copy of which is Ex. R-3, checking by the officials of the Board does not remain in dispute. All the official acts performed by the public servants in discharge of their public duties are presumed to be correct unless otherwise proved. There is no allegation of the complainant that any officer or official of the Board has animus against him to make false case of theft of energy. In these circumstances fact that affidavits of the official who had conducted the checking are not on the record,would fetch no significance. So far as affidavit of the complainant is concerned, it stands amply rebutted with the record i.e. Ex. R-3 & affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Parampal Singh, S.D.O. who has no enmity with him. Checking report has been signed by the officials of the Board as well as by the complainant as is evident from Ex. R-3. It is not plausible and probable that complainant could sign blank format of the report in the Enforcement Checking Register. When complainant signed the report in which mode of theft of electricity has been explained, he cannot drive any benefit by saying that copy of the checking report was not supplied to him. Evidence on record proves that complainant was committing theft of energy when connection was checked by the officials of the Board on 5.2.07.<br /> 12. As regards criteria for the impugned demand and the period of theft, learned counsel for the opposite parties drew our attention to commercial circular No. 53/2006. As per checking report, complainant was using load of 10.696 KW at the time of checking. His sanctioned load was 4.866 KW. Temporary unauthorised load which he was using was 5.830 KW. Mode, manner and period for assessment in case of unauthorised use of electricity are determined as per commercial circular No. 53/2006. Accordingly provisional assessment order has been served upon the complainant, copy of which is Ex. C-3. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that no criteria of demand and specific period of theft has been given in the provisional assessment order. <br /> 13. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities relied upon by the complainant, they become distinguishable. In the case of Charan Singh Vs. P.S.E.B. (Chairman) & Anr (Supra), signatures of the complainant or his representative were not obtained on the report. In the present case, checking report bears the signatures of the complainant. In the case of Delhi Vidyut Board Vs. Devender Singh (Supra), grievance of Devender Singh in the complaint filed by him before the District Forum was that he was not involved in the alleged theft of electricity as in the FIR which was lodged the name of the accused was Sandeep Singh with whom he had no connection. Other grievance of the complainant was that before removing his meter, neither any notice nor opportunity of hearing was given. It is not so in this case. In this case, checking was done in the presence of the complainant who appended his signatures on it. The case regarding Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Rekhaben S. Jha (supra) was regarding tampering of the meter. In the case in hand, version of the opposite parties for raising the demand is totally different.<br /> 14. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 15. In the premises written above, crux of the matter is that demand of Rs. 87,957/- raised by the opposite parties through impugned memo is legal and valid and is not excessive. Evidence does not establish that it is the result of political pressure. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in raising the demand. Complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 05-06-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> .<br /> <br />