District Consumer Disputes Redressel Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib<br /> <br /> Complaint No.21dt 29/1/08<br /> Date of Decision:14 /05/08<br /> Rajinder Kumar S/o Sh. Diyal Chan, R/o Ward No.5 Mohalla Pura,Bassi Pathanan, Tehsil Bassi Pathana and Distt Fatehgarh Sahib.<br /> Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1)Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary.<br /> 2)Xen, Punjab State Electricity Board, Division G.T. Road Sirhind Distt Fatehgarh Sahib.<br /> 3)Sub divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board,, Sub Division Bassi Pathanan(Urban)Distt Fatehgarh Sahib.<br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Present:- Miss Navjot Kaur, counsel for the complainant<br /> Sh. R.S. Grewal, counsel for the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> Rajinder Kumar has directed this complaint against Punjab State Electricity Board by alleging that he has an electricity connection No. KK37/0916 at his residence , that he belongs scheduled caste and that he has been exempted from the electrical charges as per the directions of Punjab Government. It is also alleged that in the month of December, 2007 the officials of the opposite parties came to his house and told that he is using the said connection for commercial purpose and that the said connection will be disconnected if he has failed to pay the electricity bills as per the charges of commercial consumption. It is also alleged that he has moved an application to Assistant Engineer, Bassi Pathanan that he is using the said connection for residential purpose and the opposite parties have appointed the concerned official to make the enquiry and reported that the complainant is using the said electricity connection for residential purpose. It is also alleged that on 10/1/08, the officials of the opposite parties came to their house to disconnect the electricity connection and ultimately they have illegally disconnected the electricity connection . It is also alleged that he has received the bill for the amount of Rs. 11200/- and the said bill is illegal and thus he has filed this complaint.<br /> 2) The opposite parties have contested the complaint and raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts .On merits it is alleged that the electricity connection is running in the name of the complainant. It is also alleged that the complainant is a defaulter and thus penalty of Rs. 8482/- has been imposed as mentioned in the letter dt. 01/11/07. It is also alleged that the complainant has suppressed the true facts as the connection was checked by the officials of the opposite parties in the presence of the representative/wife of the consumer on 10.10.2007 and it was found that the complainant was consuming electricity illegally for his grocery/ karyana shop with the sanctioned load of 0.460 KW and the existing load was 1.6 KW. The opposite parties has denied the other allegations. <br />  3)       Counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex C1/A, copy of bill dated 07.01.2008 Ex C-1, cast certificate Ex C-2, copy of application dated 07.01.2008 Ex C-3 and closed the evidence. <br />  4)       Counsel for the opposite parties has tendered in evidence affidavit of Er. Shiv Dayal, SDO Ex R-1, copy of checking report dated 10.10.2007 Ex R-2, notice dated 01.11.2007 Ex R-3 and closed the evidence. <br />  5)       We have gone through the record and have learned counsel for the parties. <br />  6)       It is an admitted fact that the complainant has electric connection. <br />  7)       Learned counsel for the opposite parties has urged that electric connection is for commercial purpose and thus this forum has no jurisdiction and he has referred to 2006(2)CLT page 212 Delhi Vidyut Board versus Devendra Singh and another wherein it has been held as under:-<br /> “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(c)-Complaint- Electricity theft-case of-issue of theft/dishonest abstraction of electrical energy do not fall in any of the sub-clauses of sub-Section(c) of Section 2 of the Act-It cannot form subject matter of proceedings before the Authorities under the CP Act (No)”<br /> 8) Ld. Counsel for the complainant has referred to1994(1)CLT page 417 in HSEB vs. Krishan Devi wherein it has been held as under;-<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 15-Appeal-Electricity- Theft-What may first be noticed is the fact that admittedly the impugned inspection report did not bear the signatures of either the consumer or any one of his representative-Nor is it is appellant's case that the said report was at any time served upon the consumer or any opportunity afforded to him-Whole action Seems to be patently violative of the statutory conditions Nos 24(A)(ii)(3) and 24-A(v) (i) duly notified the appellant Board itself<br /> 9) Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also referred to 2006(1)CLT page 659 Charan Singh Versus Chairman, PSEB wherein it has been held as under:-<br /> (i)Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section3-Additional remedy-Jurisdiction-Consumer Forum-Even if Civil Court has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act is not barred-The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the other remedies available in other statutes/C.P.C<br /> (ii)Electricity Supply-Allegation of theft-Demand-Raising of-Challenge as to-Charge of theft of energy is a criminal charge and a strict proof is required to establish the offence as is required before the criminal court- Niceties/technicalities of Evidence Act regarding production of evidence can be overlooked-However, charge has to be proved-Neither there are signatures of the complainant or his representative in the report nor there is any collateral evidence of taking into possession, the PVC wire allegedly used for stealing electricity energy-PSEB could not raise demand on the bare report of the meter inspector which has not even been signed by the complainant.  <br />  10)       The Opposite parties have alleged that they have made the checking on 10.10.2007 Ex R-2 on the basis of which notice dated 01.11.2007 Ex R-3 has been sent. The checking report reveals that the complainant was using the said electric connection for commercial purpose for running the Karayana shop and the load has been checked which was found to be 1.600 KW but the said checking report does not bear the signature of the complainant or his representative  nor any memo has been prepared which would have been attested by any panch, sarpanch or any independent witness of the village Therefore, the said checking report is the violation of the electricity rules as referred above which is a matter of deficiency of service <br />  11)     Furthermore the complainant has alleged that he is not using the said electric connection for commercial purpose and he has produced his affidavit Ex C1/A wherein he has alleged that he has moved an application to the Assistant Engineer, Bassi Pathana and it was found that he was not using the said electric connection for commercial purpose. In the bill Ex C-1 the category of the consumption is mentioned as NRS. The complainant has moved an application to the Assistant Engineer copy of which is Ex C-3 wherein he has alleged that the place where the meter has been installed is not been used as a shop and there is a report on the said application that the meter has been checked at the spot and it was found that the consumer was using the supply of electricity for residential purpose. Therefore, the said report has falsified the checking report Ex R-2 wherein it is mentioned that the complainant is using the said electric connection for commercial purpose and thus the contents of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the connection is for commercial purpose has no legs to stand and thus this forum has jurisdiction. <br /> 12)     For the forgoing reasons and discussion we accept the complaint and quash the recovery of Rs. 8482/- as mentioned in the notice Ex R-3 dated 01.11.2007. The complainant has moved an application that the electric connection may be restored and this forum has passed an order that the electric connection may be restored and the same has been restored. Therefore, we direct the opposite parties not to disconnect the electric connection on the basis of the contents of the checking report Ex R-2. We also direct the opposite parties to make the payment of Rs.1000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 500/- as cost of the compliant. <br /> 13)     Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.<br />  <br /> Announced:- 14/05/08<br />                                                                              Gurdev Singh<br />                                                                              President<br />                                                                             Distt Consumer Forum<br />                                                                              Fatehgarh Sahib<br />   <br />                                                                              Veena Chahal<br />                                                                              Member<br /> .      <br />                                                                              Sher Singh Sidhu<br />                                                                       Member<br />  <br />