Punjab

Patiala

314/07

JAGDISH KUMAR S/O SARDARA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSEB - Opp.Party(s)

GAJJAN SINGH

07 Feb 2008

ORDER


District Consumer Redressal Forum
District Consumer Redressal Forum,Old CMO Building,Baradari,Opposite Nihal Bagh
consumer case(CC) No. 314/07

JAGDISH KUMAR S/O SARDARA SINGH
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

PSEB
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Inderjit Singh 2. Smt. Parmjit Kaur

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA. Complaint No.314 of 6.8.2007 Decided on: 7.2.2008 Jagdish Kumar s/o Sh.Sardara Singh r/o Tej Bagh Colony, East Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board ,through its Secretary, Head Office, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Sub-Divisional Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board ,Sub Division, East, Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Smt.Paramjit Kaur,Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.G.S.Sandrania,adv. For opposite parties: Sh.G.S.Dhaliwal,adv. ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT Complainant, Jagdish Kumar 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 under 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 the consumer of the opposite parties vide his power consumption account No.P23RM 05/0942 N.That a power meter had been installed at the residence of the complainant and the said power meter was recently replaced with the electronic power meter by the opposite party No.2.That the complainant has been regularly paying of the power consumption charges regarding the consumption of the power by him without any lapse on his part. That recently the complainant received a highly inflated power consumption bill payable by 2.8.2007 in the amount of Rs.3560/-against the consumption of 168 units which is very unreasonable wrongful and highly disproportionate to the actual consumption by the complainant. That the complainant made a representation to the opposite party No.1against issuing the above mentioned power consumption bill to which the opposite party No.2 showed an unaccommodating behaviour towards the complainant and threatened him to remove the power meter installed at his residence instead. That the complainant, prior to the receipt of the above mentioned power consumption bill, had rather got the power load decreased as he does not require the load of power which was shown in his account. That now the opposite party No.2 has removed the power meter installed at the residence of the complainant and has disconnected the power supply to the complainant. That the complainant who is a daily labourer and is in possession of a very small house of two rooms and a kitchen having three bulbs and three plugs, cannot be expected to deposit the above mentioned amount of Rs.3560/-That by issuing the highly inflated power consumption bill and by removing the power meter from the residence of the complainant and by disconnecting the power supply to the complainant, the opposite parties have rendered the deficient services to the complainant. That the complainant is a poor and law abiding citizen and has never misused the power for any purpose whatsoever, nor has there been any complaint against him so far. That the act of the opposite parties of issuing the above mentioned highly inflated and disproportionate of the actual power consumption bill is illegal, wrongful and is a result of misuse of powers. That because of the receipt of the unreasonable and highly inflated power bill, the complainant has undergone immense mental torture for which he is entitled to the compensatory costs of Rs.5000/- from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is admitted that bill payable upto 2.8.2007 was sent to the complainant for an amount of Rs.3560/-.It is denied that that the bill is unreasonable, wrongful and highly disproportionate .The bill includes Rs.418/- for consumption of 168 units of electricity and Rs.3142/-as sundry charges. The factual position is that the connection of the complainant was checked by AEE ( SDO ),East Sub-Division,P.S.E.B.,Patiala in routine checking on 17.4.2007 vide register No.204,page No.18. It was found that at the time of checking, the complainant was illegally drawing power directly from the service lines by bye-passing the meter. This act of the complainant amounted to theft of electric energy, as such a bill cum notice dated 17.4.2007 was sent to the complainant for an amount of Rs.3792/-as theft penalty. The complainant then approached the Board officials and admitted the factum of theft, but showed inability to deposit whole of the amount. He requested that the amount may be got deposited from him in installments. This request of the complainant was accepted and the complainant deposited Rs.600/- on 3.5.2007 vide receipt No.146/91036.The rest of the amount was added in the bill dated 2.8.2007 as sundry charges along with actual consumption charges. It is denied that any official of the opposite parties ever misbehaved with the complainant. It is denied that the power connection meter has been removed and the power supply disconnected. The connection of the complainant has not been disconnected and the electric power is still being supplied to the complainant through the very same connection. The opposite parties are in no way deficient in providing services to the complainant. It is denied that the amount raised by the opposite parties in the bill is illegal, wrong full or that it is a result of misuse of power. It is denied that the complainant has suffered any mental torture for which he is entitled to compensatory costs of Rs.5000/-from the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, bill dated 16.7.2007, Ex.C1 and bill dated 8.3.2007, Ex.C2. 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.R1 of Er.Harjit Singh, copy of bill cum notice dated 17.4.2007,Ex.R2, copy of receipt No.146 dated 3.5.2007,Ex.R3 and copy of checking report dated 17.4.2007,Ex.R4. 6. The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the leaned counsel for the parties. 7. There was a charge of theft of energy against the complainant .In the register where the noting is made regarding the alleged theft there are no signatures of the complainant or any of his representative. It has also not been suggested any where that the consumer or his representative had refused to sign in the register in which the report regarding the alleged theft of energy was recorded. The perusal of the checking report, Ex.R4, shows that it does not bear the signatures of the complainant or his representative, rather a noting is made where signatures of the complainant or his representative were required on the report, Ex.R4 as “nBgV” (illiterate).Moreover there is also no mention on the report that the consumer or his representative has refused to sign the same. The charge of theft of energy is a criminal charge and a strict proof is required to establish the offence as is required before a criminal court. Of course niceties / technicalities of Evidence Act regarding the production of evidence can be over looked. However, the charge has to be proved. As observed, in the present case neither there are signatures of the complainant or her representative on the report nor there is any collateral evidence of taking into possession the PVC wire allegedly used for stealing electricity energy. We are of the view that the P.S.E.B. could not raise the demand on the bare report of the J.E. which has not even been signed by the complainant or his representative .On this point we are supported by the authority Charan Singh Vs. Chairman P.S.E.B. and others 2006(1)CLT 659. 8. As per the case of the opposite parties the alleged checking was done by an AEE (SDO) East Sub Division, P.S.E.B.Patiala on 17.4.2007.The record shows that the said AEE has not been examined in this case. Even Er.Harjit Singh, Asstt.Executive Engineer, has not deposed in his affidavit, Ex.R1 as to who was the AEE who had allegedly conducted the checking. 9. 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 opposite parties are at liberty to issue the correct bill on the basis of the actual consumption. The opposite parties are further directed to install the power and power meter at the residence of the complainant if, the same has been disconnected, immediately. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated: 7.2.2008. President Member




......................Inderjit Singh
......................Smt. Parmjit Kaur