DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 45 of 15-02-2007<br /> Decided on : 07-05-2007 <br /> <br /> Nathu Ram S/o Sh. Nigahi Ram, R/o H. No. 555P, Pujjanwala Mohalla, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary.<br /> 2. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Electricity Board, Civil Lines, Sub Division, Bathinda.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Pankaj Soni, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Inderjit Singh, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBHIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Complainant is holder of electricity connection bearing A/c No. LS57/0302 . Bill dated 3.2.07 for the period from 8.11.06 to 6.1.07 was received by him through which demand has been raised to the tune of Rs. 21,920/-. Out of this amount, Rs. 21,000/- have been shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances. Remaining amount is concerning the consumption of electricity. Bill was payable upto 15.2.07. Complainant assails the demand of Rs. 21,000/- as illegal, null and void, arbitrary, nonest and unjustified on the grounds that opposite parties have not given details of the amount and straightway amount has been included in the current bill. They have not implemented their rules and regulations. No notice was given to him before raising the demand. No opportunity of personal hearing was provided. They have failed to mention the basis or criteria according to which amount of Rs. 21,000/- is payable. They were contacted by the complainant. He was apprised that charges are being debited as he was committing theft of energy. Complainant denied this allegation. According to him, meter was being checked by the official of the board bi-monthly, but nothing incriminating was ever pointed out by the meter reader. Request was made by him to the opposite parties to withdraw the demand and get the remaining amount pertaining to actual consumption deposited, but to no effect. To the contrary, they are out to recover it illegally and forcibly and to disconnect the electricity connection if the payment is not made. In these circumstances, he has moved this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to quash the demand of Rs. 21,000/-; pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment and Rs. 3300/- as cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try it as the dispute is liable to be referred to Dispute Settlement committee of the Board; complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint; questions of law and facts are involved which require voluminous evidence which can be taken by the civil court; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, they admit that complainant is the electricity connection holder. Inter-alia their plea is that on 18.8.06 their officials had checked the connection in the presence of Sh. Vijay Kumar, his representative. During checking, it was found that complainant was taking direct supply of electricity by putting direct wire from the service joint, which was further connected in a plug. It was a case of theft of electricity. Detailed checking report was prepared which was also signed by Sh.Vijay Kumar. On its basis, demand of Rs. 21,000/- was raised vide memo No. 2019 dated 1.9.06. Complainant failed to make compliance of the memo. Accordingly amount has been charged in the bill dated 3.2.07. They deny that demand is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the complaint. They refute the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of bill (Ex. C-2), electricity bills (Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6), photographs alongwith negatives (Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-10) and affidavit of Sh. Ajay Kumar (Ex. C-11).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties two affidavits of S/Sh. Kirpal Singh and Sarabjit Singh (Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2) respectively, photocopy of checking report (Ex. R-3) and photocopy of notice (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant.<br /> 6. Learned counsel for the complainant vehementally argued that opposite parties have failed to prove that complainant was committing theft of electric energy. Moreover, complainant could not commit theft in the manner alleged by the opposite parties. For this, he drew our attention to the photographs Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-10 and the affidavit Ex. C-11 of Sh. Ajay Kumar, photographer. He further argued that even otherwise demand is illegal and against the circulars/rules and regulations of the Punjab State Electricity Board.<br /> 7. Mr. Inderjit Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties urged that theft of electricity which was being committed by the complainant on 18.8.06 stands proved from the affidavit Ex. R-2 of Sh. Sarabjit Singh, A.E/S.D.O. who conducted the checking of the connection of the complainant and also from Ex. R-3 copy of the checking report signed by S/Sh. Vijay Kumar, Sarabjit Singh and others.<br /> 8. We have given our careful thought to the rival arguments.<br /> 9. Allegation of theft of electricity by the complainant has been levelled by the opposite parties. Theft of electricity is required to be proved like criminal offence by way of producing cogent and convincing evidence. It cannot be said to have been proved on the basis of inferences . As per version of the opposite parties complainant was taking direct supply of electricity by putting wire from the service joint which was further connected in a plug. Opposite parties did not deem it fit to take into possession the wire which is stated to have been used for by-passing the electric meter. No reason has been assigned in the checking report, copy of which is Ex. R-3 or otherwise for not taking it in possession. Demand is liable to be quashed on this core. For this, we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission of Punjab in the case of Charan Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board (Chairman) and another 2006(1) JRC 206. According to the opposite parties, Sh. Vijay Kumar, representative of the complainant was present at the time of checking. His affidavit is not on the record. It was for the opposite parties to establish that he was really representative of the complainant. They have not proved his alliance or relationship with the complainant. His parentage and other particulars have not been disclosed by the opposite parties either in the reply of the complaint or affidavits Ex. R-1 & Ex R-2. So far as the affidavit Ex. R-2 is concerned, it stands amply bracketed with the affidavit of the complainant. In these circumstances, bald affidavit of Sh. Sarabjit Singh is not enough to establish theft of electricity.<br /> 10. Even it it is taken for arguments sake although we do not subscribe to it that complainant was committing theft of energy, even then, demand of Rs. 21,000/- raised by the opposite parties through memo, copy of which is Ex. R-4 and thereafter by way of showing it in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 3.2.07, copy of which is Ex. C-2, cannot be sustained. Date of checking is 18.8.06. Commercial Circular No. 34 of 2006 became operational w.e.f. 6.7.06. Opposite parties were required to make compliance of this commercial circular of the Board. As per this circular, provisional assessment order as per Section 126 was to be served upon the complainant by Assessing Officer. After affording reasonable opportunity of hearing against the objections filed by him, Assessing Officer was to pass an order of the charges payable by him giving him 7 days for representing against provisional order. In this case, no provisional order has been served upon the complainant. No reasonable opportunity of hearing has been given. As per memo No. 2019 dated 1.9.06, copy of which is Ex. R-4, demand of Rs. 21,000/- has been made from the complainant giving direction to deposit it within 7 days failing which his connection would be disconnected. Hence on the legal side as well, this demand is illegal as it is against circular No. 34/2006 which was issued by the Board.<br /> 11. As a result of what has been discussed above, illegal demand of Rs. 21,000/- raised by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 12. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant in the given situation. Complainant is not liable to meet the demand of Rs. 21,000/- as it is illegal, null and void and not binding upon him. Direction deserves to be given to the opposite parties to withdraw demand of Rs. 21,000/- out of the amount of bill dated 3.2.07. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused the complainant mental tension, agony, botheration and harassment for which he deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> 13. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 14. In the light of discussion made above, complaint is accepted against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> i) Withdraw the demand of Rs. 21,000/- shown in the column of sundry charges and allowances in the bill dated 3.2.07, copy of which is Ex. C-2.<br /> ii) Pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14 (1)(d) of the Act. <br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Act would carry interest @ 9% P.A. till payment.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 07-05-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> <br />