DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.143/12.09.2008 Decided on : 06.02.2009 Sh.Jagdev Singh S/o Sh.Jora S/o Sh.Kehar Singh, C/o Dhillon Repairing Works, Near Bus Stand, Joga, District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Joga, Tehsil and District Mansa. 2.Sh.Magher Singh, Junior Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division, Joga, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties . Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh.P.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Parties. Quorum: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President: This complaint has been filed, by Sh.Jagdev Singh son of Sh.Jora, resident of Joga, District Mansa, against Punjab State Electricity Board (in short called the 'board'), through its Assistant Executive Engineer, Joga and Sh.Magher Singh, Junior Engineer, at Joga , under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), for restraining them from disconnecting the electric connection bearing Account No.B48PT590024H installed in his shop situated near Bus Stand, Joga, where he runs the business of welding etc, for earning his livelihood and from affecting recovery of Rs.76,989/- and directing them Contd........2 : 2 : to pay costs of filing the complaint, in the sum of Rs.9,000/-. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is consumer qua the above said electric connection under the opposite parties and his average consumption had been approximately 200 units. The complainant, has neither committed theft of electric energy, nor he has made the payment of electricity bills drawn upon him. On 16.8.2008, OP No.2 visited his shop and secured signatures of the complainant on certain blank papers claiming that he is to record the factum of checking, as desired by the higher authorities of the board. He subsequently visited the shop of the complainant and started claiming that his electric meter is recording consumption of less energy against which his higher authorities are raising objection, but if he pays a sum of Rs.10,000/-, then he will finish the matter. The complainant expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount and told him that he has never done any illegal act. On hearing his response, the said official of the board warned him to teach him a lesson, before they left his shop. The complainant remained under impression that he remained successful in getting rid of demand of illegal gratification made by OP No.2, but he received notice from the opposite parties raising a demand of Rs.76,989/- on the allegations that he was found drawing excess load of electric energy against the sanctioned load. Thereafter he visited the office of the opposite parties, but he was advised to affect compromise with OP No.2, in case he intends that amount of demand may be waived off. Since the complainant has never used excess energy, nor has he committed any theft of electric energy, as such, notice served upon him is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which he is liable to be compensated by them. 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; and 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 he has not approached this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, from its knowledge; that complaint, being false and vexatious, is liable, to be dismissed, with compensatory costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/- and that this Forum has no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint, because, the complainant, was found committing theft of electric energy. On merits, it is admitted that electric connection, has been installed by the opposite parties. It is not denied that complainant, has been regularly making payment of electricity bills drawn upon him by the opposite parties, but it is submitted that, on 16.8.2008, Sh.Baljinder Singh, Sh.Maghar Singh, Junior Engineer accompanied by Sh.Balvir Singh, ALM visited the shop of the complainant and checked the electric meter installed therein and they found that the complainant by making a joint in the 1.5 BHP motor compressor and service with the use of a black colour wire, has been drawing electric energy, although electric meter installed in his shop, was not running. It is submitted that checking report was prepared on the spot and signed by the complainant and assessing officer, provisionally assessed the liability of the complainant in the sum of Rs.76,989/-, which he was liable to pay, as per rules on the subject. It is denied that illegal gratification, has been demanded by OP No.2 or he visited the shop of the complainant for the said purpose. Rest of the allegations, made in the 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 complainant, tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ext.C-1 reasserting the allegations made in the complaint almost in their entirety. He has also tendered affidavits of two shopkeepers Parveen Kumar and Nachhatar Singh, Ext.C-2 and C-3, respectively, running their shops in the same Contd........4 : 4 : vicinity, substantiating the contents of his affidavit. He further tendered in evidence, copies of electricity bills Ext.C-5 to C-8 and impugned notice Ext.C-4 before he closed his evidence. On the other hand, Sh.Omkar Jindal, S.D.O. has tendered his affidavit Ext.OP-1 reasserting the averments made in the written version on solemn affirmation. Learned counsel has also tendered copies of checking report and impugned bill Ext.OP-2 and OP-3, respectively, before he closed their evidence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by the parties, carefully, with their kind assistance. 6. To begin with Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that the opposite parties, have not disclosed the manner in which the theft, has been committed in the notice served upon the complainant, who has examined two independent shopkeepers from the vicinity in support of his allegations that false case, has been planted upon him by OP No.2, after he refused to meet his demand of illegal gratification. Learned counsel, has argued that as per the copies of bill, placed on record, consumption of electricity in the shop of the complainant, in the past had been on quite lower side and no official of the board, has ever reported theft of electric energy by him in his shop. Learned counsel, has further submitted, that no independent witness, has been associated by the officials of the board, at the time of checking, as such, complaint is liable to succeed. Learned counsel argued that direction be given to the opposite parties, as prayed for in the complaint. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, Sh.P.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that complainant, has affixed his signatures on the checking report admitting the contents thereof to be correct and he, has not filed any complaint regarding demand of illegal gratification raised by OP No.2. Learned counsel also argued that manner of commission of theft, has been described in the copy of the report given by the checking team Contd........5 : 5 : and a copy, has been supplied to the complainant. Learned counsel argued that even actual loan found by the checking team, was much more than the sanctioned load and assessing officer, has worked out the amount of provisional assessment as per the rules on the subject, as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs. 8. Admittedly, electric connection in question is installed in the shop of the complainant. There is no dispute that he has been making the payment of electricity charges regularly of the amount of the bill drawn by the board upon him for consumption of electricity through the electric connection installed in his shop. The complainant, has produced on record copies of the bills for the earlier period to substantiate his plea that his consumption through the said electric connection in the past had been approximately 200 units. However, his plea that OP No.2 visited his shop on 16.8.2008 and secured his signatures on blank papers on the pretext of reporting the factum of checking to the higher authorities, does not sound well to the logic, because no sane person would affix signatures on blank papers, on such flimsy plea. In order to support his plea, that illegal gratification was sought by OP No.2, he has examined two shopkeepers from the vicinity, but, he has not produced on record any document showing that he reported the conduct of the officials of OP No.2, to the police or any other higher authority. As such, much confidence cannot be imposed on the affidavit of the complainant and that of his fellow shopkeepers, especially when he has not denied his signatures, on the checking report and, has not explained the circumstances under which he affixed his signatures on the said document. In the copy of the checking report, it is clearly mentioned that he was found drawing electric energy by-passing the electric meter installed in his shop which was not running at the time of checking by making a joint on the compressor service of his 1.5 BHP motor by using a wire of black colour. The details of the Contd.......6 : 6 : connected load have also been clearly mentioned in the checking report on which the complainant has appended his signatures, after understanding the contents thereof. As per the plea of the opposite parties, copy of the checking report was supplied to the complainant before he appended his signatures on the said document at the spot. Therefore, he cannot be permitted, to wriggle out and to urge that checking report is not correct. In the copy of the impugned notice, Ext.C-4, it is mentioned that actual load of the complainant, was 5.709KW, against the sanctioned load of 4.47 KW. The details of the provisional assessment, have also been mentioned in the said document. The complainant was given opportunity to appear before the opposite parties, within a period of 7 days, to submit his version and file the reply, but he failed to so for the reasons best known to him. 9. In the light of the above discussion, we are constrained to hold, that the complainant remained unsuccessful in establishing that there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, so far as raising of demand through impugned notice is concerned. As such, no ground is made out for grant of compensation to the complainant for physical and mental harassment or payment of amount spent by him for filing the instant complaint, merely because of technical lapse, if any, on the part of officials of the opposite parties. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the complaint. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. 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: 06.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
