DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.178/29.10.2007 Decided on : 12.06.2008 Mithu Singh S/o Sh.Buggar Singh,Village Joga, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. 2.S.D.O. (Distribution), 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. Ranjit Singh, counsel for the complainant. Sh.K.C. counsel for the opposite parties. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Mithu Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman at Patiala as well as S.D.O. (Distribution), Mansa (hereinafter called as the Ops No.1 and 2 respectively) for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to withdraw notice dated 04.10.2007, restoration of his electric connection and also pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and litigation costs. Admitted facts of the case are that the complainant is the Contd........2 : 2 : consumer of the opposite party with regard to electric connection bearing Account No.PT59/0061, which had been obtained by him for running a lathe machine for earning his livelihood. The complainant has alleged that no extra manpower is being employed by him, since he is doing the work all alone. The OP Board had changed the tariff of his connection from domestic to commercial after installation of the lathe machine by him. The opposite party had issued notice dated 04.10.2007 vide which an amount of Rs.29,802/- was demanded from the complainant on the allegation of theft of energy and using excess load by him. The demand is alleged to be illegal, as no theft of energy is stated to have been committed by the complainant. A false case of theft has been imposed on the complainant. The complainant further claims to have suffered mental tension and physical harassment on account of illegal demand. The Opposite party in its written version has challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the demand relating to theft of energy, this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Further that, the complainant is not their consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the electric connection is being used for commercial purposes. On merits, it was contended that premises of the complainant was checked on 26.09.2007 and the complainant was found to have connected the wire from the main supply with a joint on his terrace and directly using the electricity bye passing the meter. The complainant was caught red handed while committing theft of energy and was also found using excess load . When the complainant failed to deposit the amount of penalty, the electric supply to the complainant was, therefore, disconnected and his meter was also removed. The demand of Rs.29,802/- raised from Contd........3 : 3 : the complainant is claimed to be perfectly legal and valid. All other allegations were denied by it and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the entire evidence placed on record. Obviously, the demand from the complainant is based upon the alleged theft of energy. The perusal of Ext.OP-2, checking report dated 26.09.2007, indicates that the only allegation was that the complainant was caught red handed while committing theft of energy and was also found using excess load. The mode of theft, according to the Checking Staff was that the complainant was found to have dirrectly connected the wire from the main supply with a joint on his terrace and using the electricity bye passing the meter. The checking report bears the signatures of one Jagga Singh. The complainant has strongly disputed this signatory on the ground that he has no relation with this Jagga Singh and the checking was never done in his presence nor in the presence of any representative of the consumer. As such, the penalty imposed by the opposite parties is highly arbitrary. OP Board could not prove the identity of the alleged Jagga Singh with the complainant to establish that Jagga Singh , the signatory of the checking report has, in any way, any link with the complainant. From the above said report, which is not corroborated by any other evidence, it will be unjust to draw any inference about any prima facie theft by the complainant. Moreover, if at all there was any main joint from where the complainant could draw energy by illegal means, it Contd........4 : 4 : was the duty of the OP Board itself to plug that loop hole to avoid theft of energy. The opposite parties and its officials can be safely held to be deficient in service and no inference merely from the checking report, which is without the signatures of the consumer or its representative, can be drawn about the theft of energy by the complainant. The demand raised by the opposite parties from the complainant is thus rendered illegal, more so, when no opportunity of being heard had ever been granted to the complainant before raising the demand from him. The provisions under Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, under which demand was raised from the complainant, were not duly complied with by the OP Board itself. In Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.(HVPN) versus Gautam Plastic, I (2008)CPJ 62 (NC), wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that, Checking not done either in presence of consumer or responsible officials. Principles of natural justice not followed. Penalty levied unilaterally. In the case in hand also the checking of the meter was not done either in the presence of the consumer or its representative. Thus it is clear that principles of natural justice had never been followed by the OP Board. The allegation of theft of energy having not been proved, the complainant is thus not liable to pay the amount of Rs.29,802/- demanded from him by the OP Board on this account. The letter dated 4.10.2007 ( Exhibit C-2) demanding Rs.29,802/- is liable to be withdrawn by the Board. In view of the aforesaid facts, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the opposite parties to withdraw the letter dated 4.10.2007 demanding Rs.29,802/- on account of theft of energy and refund the amount of Rs.9,000/-, if deposited by the complainant in compliance of the Contd........5 : 5 : interim order passed by this Forum on 29.10.2007. The opposite parties are also directed to remove the joint, if any, from the house of the complainant from where electricity can be stolen. The OP is also burdened with Rs.500/- as litigation costs/compensation. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order which shall be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 12.06.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
