DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.20/18.02.2008 Decided on : 19.08.2008 Harvinder Pal S/o Sh. Dharam Pal Singh, Near Municipal Park, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Assistant Executive Engineer,City, Sub Division, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S. K.Singla, counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.K.Chhabra, counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. Order: This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act' ) has been preferred by the complainant seeking a direction from this Forum to the opposite party to quash Memo No. 226 dated 08.02.2008; pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation. 2) Briefly quote, the case of the complainant is that he is holder of electricity connection bearing Account No.PA/22/211 It is averred by him that he is doing the work of manufacturing wooden crates. He is personally doing the work without employing any person with him. This is the only source of his livelihood. He is paying the electricity consumption bills regularly. Letter No.226 dated 08.02.2008 was issued to him by the opposite party raising demand of Rs.77,753/-. He assails this demand Contd........2 : 2 : as illegal. It is further averred by him that false allegation of theft of energy has been levelled against him. Meter has been installed outside the boundary of his premises (ahata). It is the duty of the opposite party to control the meter. Meter was never tampered with by him. The signatures of his brother were obtained forcibly. In these circumstances, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3) Opposite party filed his version taking legal objection that complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint; complaint is not maintainable in the present form; it is bad for non joinder of necessary parties; rules, regulations and guidelines of the Board do not come under the purview of the Act; complainant has not come with clean hands and is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct; he has concealed the material facts from this Forum and complaint is false and frivolous. 4) On merits, he contends that connection had been obtained for commercial purpose and, as such, complainant is not consumer. Single person cannot manufacture wooden crates. Notice No.226 dated 08.02.2008 is valid and legal. Competent authority has checked the connection. On physical verification it was found that running load was 5.17 KW while sanctioned load was 1.83 KW. Moreover, it was a case of theft of electricity as both the seals were tampered. Seven days time was given to the complainant to deposit the amount of extended load and submit the receipt. Provisional Order of Assessment is legal and valid and is under the rules. He denies the remaining averments in the complaint. 5) In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Harvinder Pal, complainant has tendered in its evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C-1), Memo No.226 (Ex.C-2), Copy of judgment dated 3.8.2006 (Ex.C-3) and Bills (Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5) 6) In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite party, affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar Singla, Assistant Executive Engineer (Ex.OP-1), Memo No. Contd........3 : 3 : 226 (Ex.OP-2) and Checking report (Ex.OP-3) have been tendered in evidence. 7) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the evidence. 8) Out of the objections taken by the opposite party, one point pressed by the opposite party is that complainant is not consumer as he has taken the electricity connection for commercial purpose i.e. for the purpose of manufacturing wooden crates and that this work cannot be carried out by a single person. Mr.Singla, learned counsel for the complainant argued that opposite party has failed to establish that complainant is not consumer. 9) We have considered respective arguments. It is the allegation of the opposite party that complainant is not consumer as electricity connection has been obtained by him for commercial purpose. It is its duty to establish by way of leading satisfactory evidence. For this there is bald affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer who has reiterated the averments in the reply of the complaint. No documentary proof has been produced by the opposite party showing that complainant is doing the work by way of employing several persons. Sanctioned load is only 1.83 KW. This is further suggestive of the fact that work done by the complainant cannot be at a large scale. Affidavit of the opposite party stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex.C-1 of the complainant. From this it is clear that he is doing the work of manufacturing wooden crates for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self employment. Accordingly, case of the complainant is fully covered under the explanation under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Hence he is a consumer and, as such, complaint before this Forum is maintainable. 10) In reply of the complaint, opposite party is alleging theft of energy on the basis of the checking of the electricity connection installed in the premises of the complainant. According to him, the running load was Contd........4 : 4 : 5.17 KW whereas sanctioned load was 1.83 KW. In the reply of the complaint it has not been clarified who was heading the checking party and who were the officials accompanying him. Even the date of checking has been left in lurch in the reply of the complaint. Theft of energy has to be proved by the opposite party like a criminal charge. It has to be proved by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. It cannot be said to have been proved on the basis of inferences. Opposite party did not deem it fit to bring on record the affidavits of the checking officer and the officials accompanying him. Thus virtually there is no evidence to prove the checking report, copy of which is Ex.OP-3. 11) Even if it is taken for argument sake, although we do not subscribe to it, that electricity connection was checked by some officials of the Electricity Board on 08.02.2008, as mentioned in the copy of the checking report, even then it is difficult to hold that there was theft of electricity. Mere tampering of the seals cannot lead to the conclusion that there was theft. It is not known from Ex.OP-3 as to which is the material with which seals were affixed. Checking report does not show in clear terms how and in what manner the seals were tampered. In this view of the matter, we are fortified by the observations of Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vs Suresh Kumar III(2007)CPJ 410 (NC). Similar view it has been held by Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. II(2007) CPJ 282. Learned counsel for the opposite party drew our attention to the checking report and argued that disk of the meter was moving at a very slow speed on putting load and load was 5.17 KW. As discussed above, report has not been duly proved by the opposite party by way of producing and examining the concerned officials. Mere fact that meter disk was moving slowly makes no ground to hold theft of electricity particularly when opposite party has not Contd........5 : 5 : established the theft of electricity by the complainant and the meter has not been got checked from the M.E. Laboratory for proving as to whether it was recording less energy or not. Mere fact that copy of the checking report has been brought on record by the opposite party, its version cannot be said to have been proved on any count. 12) In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no other escape but to hold that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing memo No.226 dated 08.02.2008 to the complainant, copy of which is Ex.C-2 through which demand of Rs.77,753/- has been made, is writ large. Demand is illegal and arbitrary. 13) Now question arises as to which relief be accorded to the complainant. As per the above discussion, direction deserves to be given to the opposite party to withdraw memo No.226 dated 8.2.2008. Act and conduct of the opposite party must have caused him mental agony and harassment for which complainant deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs.1,000/-. 14) No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments. 15) In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against the opposite party with costs of Rs.1000/-. Opposite party is directed to do as under: i) Withdraw memo No.226 dated 8.2..2008 copy of which is Ex.C-2. ii) Pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. 16) Compliance with regard to the payment of costs and compensation be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which amount of compensation shall carry Contd........6 : 6 : interest @ 9% per annum till payment. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges and file be consigned to record. Pronounced: 19.08.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Lakhbir Singh, Member. Member. President.
