DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC /010/15 of 8.1.2010 Decided on: 25.8.2010 Harmesh Singh son of Nar Singh, resident of Village Balla, Tehsil and District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board , The Mall Road, Patiala through its Secretary. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Sanaur, 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. Bharpur Singh, Advocate For opposite parties: Smt.Neena Kaushal, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Harmesh 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 using electricity connection No.P25LF300416P.That the meter of the complainant is still in proper working position and all the seals are at their respective places. That the opposite parties have illegally issued a demand notice No.2360 dated 21.12.2009 and also raised a demand of Rs.10545/- on account of theft, which is baseless and illegal. That the complainant contacted the opposite parties on 4.1.2010 for the deletion of the amount, however, the opposite parties refused to delete the amount and threatened to recover the amount by coercive method by disconnecting the electric connection .That no inspection report was attached with the notice raising demand. That the connection of the complainant has never been checked by any authority. The complainant has been falsely implicated in theft of energy with malafide intention. He never committed any theft of energy. That the signature of the complainant or any of his representative have not been obtained on any report and no copy of any such site report has been handed over to the complainant or any of his representative, which shows that the alleged demand notice is illegal. That the amount of Rs.10545/-demanded vide demand notice No.2360/- dated 21.12.2009 is illegal, null and void, against the rules and regulations framed under sales regulations and against the principles of natural justice. That the complainant has suffered much mental agony and torture at the hands of the opposite parties for deficiency in services and their callous attitude towards the complainant and other consumers of the P.S.E.B.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 admitted that the complainant is using electricity connection No.P25LF300416P.That the said electric connection has been installed at the premises of the complainant. It is denied that the opposite parties have illegally issued a demand notice No.2360 dated 21.12.2009 on account of theft or that the same is baseless and illegal. That in the routine checking, the disputed connection of the complainant was checked by the officer along with his checking staff on 19.12.2009 in the presence of the complainant vide checking register No.727, Page No.85 and it was found by the checking officer that the consumer was using electricity energy by illegal means i.e. “ ygseko w/B ;oft; d/ iV s f;ZXh e[zvh r/N tkbh bkJh dhnK Bkb brk e/ whNo pkJhgk; eoe/ fpibh uoh eodk we/ s/ cfVnk seohpB 5 mt 2/c PVC i e[zvh bkT[D bJh tosh ;h epi/ ftu bJh rJh. Which amounts to pilferage of energy by illegal means by him and he is liable to pay the same.That the connection of the consumer was checked in the presence of the consumer but he has refused to sign the checking report because he become aware that he has been caught red handed by committing theft of electricity energy. The checking report was written at the site in the presence of the complainant. That all facts of the theft have been mentioned in the checking report. After that the concerned office of the Board issued a bill-cum-notice vide letter No.2360 dated 21.12.2009 and asked the complainant for deposit of amount within period of 7 days. The consumer has failed to deposit the amount or file any objection to the said bill cum notice and the same amounts to admission of guilt by the consumer. Once the consumer has not availed the remedy of filing the reply to the notice then he has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The notice vide letter dated 21.12.2009 for Rs.10545/- is legal and correct and on the basis of the checking report. But the complainant instead of paying the amount of notice/letter filed the present false complaint only to save his skin and to avoid the payment of notice. It is denied that the complainant contacted the opposite parties on 4.1.2010 for the deletion of the amount or that the opposite parties refused to delete the amount or that threatened to recover the amount by coercive method by disconnecting the electric connection. The complainant never approached the opposite parties and never made such requests. It is denied that no inspection report was attached with the notice raising demand. Rather the penalty imposed upon the complainant was on the basis of checking conducted on the spot on 19.12.2009 in the presence of complainant. It is denied that the connection of the complainant has never been checked by any authority or that the complainant has been falsely implicated in theft of energy with malafide intention or that never committed any theft of energy. That the meter/connection of the complainant was usually checked and on 19.12.2009, the complainant was caught red handed while he was committing theft of electricity energy. It is denied that the amount ofRs.10545/- demanded vide demand notice No.2360/- dated 21.12.2009 is illegal, null and void, against the rules and regulations framed under sales regulations and against the principles of natural justice. Rather the demand notice vide letter dated 21.12.2009 is legal and valid one and the complainant cannot avoid his liability to pay the same by filing the present false complaint. No loss has been caused to the complainant. The demand notice is legal and genuine one. There is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. 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 whole case of the opposite parties is dependant upon the alleged checking report dated 19.12.2009, Ex.R1 and on the affidavit, Ex.R4 of Er.Ram Singh,SDO.A perusal of the checking report, Ex.R1 indicates that it does not include signatures of either the complainant or his representative. The report has also not been authenticated by any respectable person of the locality to confirm its veracity. Further more there is no evidence of a copy of this report having been given to the complainant. Under these circumstances the checking report in its present shape is against the rules and regulations of the opposite parties and it therefore, cannot be relied upon. On this point we are supported by the authority Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot Vs. Sarwan Singh 2008(1) CLT 237. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion we are clearly of the view that the opposite parties have failed to establish their case of theft of electricity on the part of the complainant. We are also of the clear view that the opposite parties have unnecessarily drawn the complainant into prolonged litigation. 8. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:25.8.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
