DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC /010/41 of 13.1.2010 Decided on: 25.8.2010 Karamjit Singh s/o Mehar Singh, resident of village Gharama Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board ,The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board,Banur,Tehsil Rajpura, District 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. S.S.Sandhu, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh. Pawan Puri, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Karamjit 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 consumer of electricity under the opposite parties and he is S.C. He has got an electric connection installed bearing an account No.53/72 in his residential house for the domestic purpose from the opposite parties. The electricity meter of the house of the complainant is installed in an iron box which has been properly sealed. That the opposite parties have sent wrong notice bearing No.2290 dated 26.11.2009 to the complainant of Rs.31293/- as theft case. In fact the complainant has not made any theft through ‘kundi’ as alleged by the opposite parties, so the notice sent by the opposite parties is wrong, against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. Moreover, wrong calculation has been made by the opposite parties. No joint checking has been made by the opposite parties and a false allegation has been made by the opposite parties on 8.10.2009.Moreover the main switch was in running condition and the grip of the switch was not removed by the complainant and electric meter was also in running condition. There was no any kundi installed by the complainant at the spot. So there is no any theft case made out against the complainant. The alleged amount of Rs.31293/- is false and against law and facts. That the demand of Rs.31293/- of the opposite parties is totally wrong, illegal, null and void and is against the mandatory provision of Electricity Act. No theft has been found committed by the complainant. That no opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant by the opposite parties. No provisional assessment has ever been made by the opposite parties regarding the alleged theft case. Moreover the meter is installed of the house of the complainant in an iron box which has been properly sealed, so question of any theft does not arise at all. That the opposite parties have not obtained the signatures/ thumb impression of the complainant at the time of alleged checking on the notice. No DDR or FIR regarding the alleged theft case has been lodged against the complainant. No report from the M.E.Lab has been called for by the opposite parties which is very much relevant and necessary, so the proceedings conducted by the opposite parties are wrong. That the complainant suffered mentally and physically shock on receiving the said illegal demand from the opposite parties for Rs.31293/- .As such the opposite parties are liable to pay the damages to the complainant to the tune of Rs.20000/-.The complainant sent an application dated 2.1.2010 to the opposite party no.2 requesting them to withdraw the above said illegal notice but no action has been taken. That the complainant is law abiding citizen. Opposite parties and their officials want to disconnect the electric connection of the house of the complainant and they are threatening for the same. 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 alleged that the connection of the complainant was checked by the checking officers of the Board of Operation Sub Division, Banur on 8.10.2009 and it was detected that the complainant was committing theft of energy by by-passing the meter i.e. by making the direct kundi with the service line of the Board. The manner and method of committing theft of energy by the complainant has been duly explained by the checking team in the checking report. The consumer was present at the site at the time of checking the connection and had countersigned the checking report in token of correctness of such checking by the checking officers of the Board. The wire with the aid of which, the consumer was committing theft of energy was removed from the site and the same was taken in possession by the checking team. The same has been handed over to the concerned Junior Engineer of the Sub Division for keeping the same in the safe custody of Sub Division of Board. The assessing officer of the Board on receipt of the report from the checking team had issued a notice to the consumer under Section 126 of the Electricity Act,2003 vide which demand of Rs.33530/-was raised against the consumer for committing theft of electricity energy. The consumer was directed to file the objections before the competent authority of the Board but the complainant failed to file any objections. The non filing of objections by the consumer amounts to admission of guilt. It is a settled law that a person who is not ready and willing to avail the opportunity of defending himself as was provided to him by a statutory authority amounts to as he has nothing to say against the proposed action and admits his liability. The assessing officer has passed the orders of final assessment vide memo No.2290 dated 26.11.2009. It is denied that the opposite parties have sent a wrong notice bearing memo No.2290 dated 26.11.2009 to the complainant of Rs.31293/- as theft of energy. It is denied that the complainant has not made any theft of energy i.e. by making kundi.It is denied that the notice is liable to be set aside. It is denied that wrong calculations have been made by the opposite parties. It is denied that the main switch was in running condition and the grip of the switch was not removed by the complainant or the meter was also in running condition. It is denied that the complainant has not made any kundi. It is denied that the complainant has not committed any theft of energy. It is denied that the demand of the Board is against the law. It is denied that the notice of demand is illegal in any manner. It is denied that the complainant has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing. It is denied that the orders of provisional assessment have not been issued to the complainant. It is denied that the checking officers have not obtained the signatures of the complainant at the time of checking the connection. In fact, the checking report bears the signatures of the complainant. It is not a case of tampering of M.E.seals of meter, so the meter was not required to be got checked from the M.E.Lab.It is denied that the complainant has suffered in any manner as has been alleged by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to any compensation. There is no deficiency in service. 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.C1, copy of reply,Ex.C2, copy of notice,Ex.C3, copy of notice,Ex.C4 and copy of bill,Ex.C5. 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties did not lead any evidence in spite of availing so many opportunities. The evidence of opposite parties was closed by order on 7.7.2010. 6. The complainant has filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The whole case of the opposite parties is dependant upon the alleged checking report dated 8.10.2009.However, to prove the alleged checking report dated 8.10.2009 the opposite parties have neither placed on record the checking report or have examined the official who had allegedly conducted the checking. The memo,Ex.C4 was issued on the basis of alleged checking dated 8.10.2009.Since the basis of the memo,Ex.C4 has not been placed on the record by the opposite parties so the alleged memo,Ex.C4 dated 12.10.2009 can not be relied upon. The opposite parties in support their case have not led any evidence. So the evidence led by the complainant has remained un rebutted on the record. 8. 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. 9. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.2000/-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 7. In view of the foregoing discussions 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. 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 | | 
