DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.04/06.01.2009<br /> Decided on : 30.04.2009<br /> <br /> Sh.Mohinder Singh S/o Sh. Baldev Singh, Near Atma Ram Hospital, Bhikhi, District Mansa.<br /> <br /> ..... Complainant.<br /> <br /> VERSUS<br /> <br /> <br /> Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Bhikhi District Mansa.<br /> <br /> ..... Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of <br /> the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> .....<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Omkar Singh Mittal,Advocate,counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh.S.K.Bansal, Advocate counsel for the opposite party.<br /> <br /> Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member.<br /> Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.<br /> <br /> ORDER:<br /> <br /> Sh.Sarat Chander, Member<br /> Sh. Mohinder Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board through its Sub Divisional Officer at Bhikhi (hereinafter called as opposite Party) for issuance of a direction to them to set aside bill dated 21.11.2008 and for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- regarding mental tension and costs of litigation in the sum of Rs2,000/-.<br /> Brief facts of this complaint are that the complainant had obtained electric connection bearing Account No. B71CA120439P for domestic purposes in his house and he had been paying the electric consumption charges from time to time, as such, he is the consumer of the <br /> Contd........2<br /> : 2 :<br /> <br /> opposite party, but they have served bill dated 21.11.2008, upon him raising demand of Rs.17450/-, which is illegal and arbitrary because the complainant has consumed 691 units only, on account of which he was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.2748/- including taxes. The OP had included Rs.14718/- on account of sundry charges. On being approached for correction in the amount of electricity bill on the basis of actual consumption, the OP refused to accede to his genuine request, as such, there is deficiency in service on their part because of which complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment, as such, opposite party was stated to be deficient in service. Hence this complaint.<br /> The OP in their written version have taken certain legal objections and challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that he is bound to make the payment of amount mentioned in the bill because he has concealed the material facts and has mis represented them in the complaint; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint because demand has been raised in the impugned bill on account of theft of electric energy and that complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed. On merits the factum of issuance of electric connection to the complainant and he being a consumer under them, is not denied. The electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant was checked on 3.5.2008 by Sh.R.K.Goyal, XEN(Enforcement), Bathinda and Sh.Jagmail Singh, J.E. in his presence and it was found that he was using electric motor of 2 KW for running his tubewell installed in his premises and drawing electric energy directly from transmission line for agriculture purposes. It is submitted that checking report was prepared at the spot and the complainant have received the copy thereof after affixing his signatures, admitting the contents to be correct, as such, demand of Rs.14718/- has been raised from the complainant after provisional assessment vide letter No.1975 and he is liable to pay the said<br /> Contd........3<br /> : 3 :<br /> <br /> amount. It was denied that the demand was in any way illegal and the OP was deficient in service towards the complainant. All other allegations were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.<br /> Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents.<br /> We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case.<br /> Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the OP has not served notice upon the complainant before raising the demand through the impugned bill wherein actual load drawn by him has not been secured, although it is mentioned in the checking report that disk of the electric meter was running. Learned counsel further argued that no independent witness has been examined from the vicinity and signatures of the complainant affixed on the checking report do not tally with the signatures affixed on the complaint. Learned counsel further submitted that the OP has not produced the wire allegedly used by the complainant for commission of theft of electric energy, as such, impugned bill is liable to be set aside and complainant is entitled to seek compensation and costs from the opposite party.<br /> On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has submitted that checking of the premises of the complainant was done in his presence and he has admitted the contents of the checking report after affixing his signatures thereon and he has not denied the factum of use of electric energy in the manner described therein, as such, demand raised through the impugned bill cannot be said to be illegal on any technicalities of procedure. Learned counsel urged that as deficiency in service is not proved on the part of the OP, as such, no indulgence of this Forum is warranted.<br /> As observed in the earlier part of the order, complainant is<br /> Contd........4<br /> : 4 :<br /> <br /> admittedly the consumer of electric energy and electric meter has been installed in his premises for domestic purposes and the OP has placed on record copy of checking report dated 3.5.2008 Ext.OP-1 which bears the signatures of the complainant. The factum of checking and manner of commission of theft is also proved by the affidavit of Sh.R.K.Goyal, XEN (Enforcement), Bathinda Ext.OP-2. The complainant has not alleged any previous enmity on the part of the above officer of the board and it is not his case that false case has been planted upon him or at the instance of any other person inimical to him. Therefore, we are unable to accept the plea of the complainant that copy of checking report does not bear his signatures. As per the case of the OP, the complainant was operating tubewell installed in his premises with the electric motor of 2 KW for pumping put water for agriculture purposes. As such, the mere fact that disk of the electric meter was running at the time of checking does not demolish the case of the parties, so far as allegations against him for drawing electricity for the above said purpose directly from the transmission line, is concerned.<br /> However, there is no notice on record which might have been served by the OP upon the complainant before raising demand through the impugned bill. The principles of natural justice demand that no person can be condemned unheard. It was incumbent upon the OP to serve notice upon the complainant and to offer him opportunity of being heard before raising the demand. In view of the said infirmity, we are of the considered opinion that demand raised in the sum of Rs.14718/- through the impugned bill Ext.C-2 by the opposite party from the complainant is not justified.<br /> Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and we set aside the demand of Rs.14718/- on account of sundry charges raised vide impugned bill, Ext.C-2, served upon the complainant with the liberty to the Opposite party to serve fresh bill after service of notice and providing him opportunity of being heard. The opposite party is also directed to refund<br /> Contd........5<br /> : 5 :<br /> <br /> the amount of Rs.5000/-, if paid by the complainant, in terms of the interim order dated 6.1.2009, with interest, at the rate of 9 %, per annum from the date of deposit, till the date of actual payment. However, the complainant is not absolved of his liability to pay the remaining amount of the impugned bill. <br /> In view of the conduct of the complainant of concealing the factum of commission of theft of electric energy and signatures, we have come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for grant of compensation on account of mental and physical harassment and costs incurred by him for filing the instant complaint. The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. <br /> Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. <br /> Pronounced<br /> 30.04.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.