DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.276 of 4.7.2007<br /> Decided on: 18.2.2008<br /> <br /> Rajinder Singh aged 40 years S/o Sh.Gobinder Singh resident of village Mohal Gawara P.O.Fatehpur,Tehsil Nabha,District Patiala.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board ,The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary.<br /> 2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub-Division (Op), P.S.E.B. <br /> Dhingee,Tehsil Nabha,District Patiala.<br /> <br /> <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur,Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.Amar Singh,adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Sh.P.S.Baweja,adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant, Rajinder 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.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties as defined under the Act having electric connection T-225 in Babarpur village,Tehsil Nabha,District Patiala.That the complainant is an unemployed person, who opened wine shop under the name and style of M/s Rajinder Singh & Company(Theka Desi Sharaab) at village Babalpur,Tehsil Nabha,District Patiala in order to earn his livelihood for the financial year 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007.That the complainant had applied for electric connection for three months i.e. from 1.1.2007 to 31.3.2007 and deposited security of Rs.3590/-.That the opposite parties released connection and the same continued for four months due to extension allowed by the Govt.of one month upto 30th April 2007.The electric connection was used for personal use i.e. only for light and fan. That after four months, connection was disconnected in 5/2007 and the complainant started using generator as the wine shop was again allotted to the complainant up to 31.3.2008.That the complainant has deposited all the energy bills from time to time. He had deposited the last bill of Rs.4871/- along with surcharge which was issued on 7.6.2007 whereas no last date was mentioned in the said bill which amounts to deficiency in service. That the complainant received a notice from the opposite party No.2 for rs.69,403/- alleging that Asstt.Superintendent Engineere,Enforcement,Patiala had found 4.60K.W.load at site. In fact site was never checked by the Enforcement party on 7.6.2007.Rather it is unfair trade practice just to harass the complainant. That the illegal and unwarranted action of the opposite parties has caused harassment and mental agony. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is denied that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties under the Act as is having electric connection No.T-225 in Babarpur village Nabha,District Patiala as alleged. In fact connection No.T-225 was installed at the shop of complainant on the application of complainant vide which he applied for temporary connection w.e.f.21.12.2006 to 20.3.2007 but thereafter same was disconnected on 8.5.2007.The complainant is running a wine shop which is a commercial set up and to take the complainant out of preview of commercial purpose complainant has averred falsely. The complainant applied for temporary connection for running 0.520KW load for his shop which was installed on 21.12.2006 for and upto period he applied. A checking was conducted y the flying squad of opposite parties at the premises of the complainant on 7.6.2007 and checking report was prepared vide enforcement checking register No.3206 page No.13 and the theft of energy by laying PVC cable directly from the electric pole of the wine shop of complainant was detected. The cable was also taken into possession by raiding party. The connected load , the details of which are mentioned in checking report dated 7.6.2007 was found illegally connected at the premises of complainant, in the presence of the complainant. The complainant was asked to sign the said checking report but he refused to do so whereupon his refusal was recorded by Sham Lal,Lineman of opposite parties. The connected load was found 4.600KW at spot .As it was a theft case, so an intimation to concerned police post of Dandrala Dhinds to register case against the complainant as per law .The calculations for the period were made and a valid and legal demand notice was served upon complainant vide notice dated 8.6.2006 for Rs.69403/-.The complainant is liable to pay the said charges to opposite parties for the said period. It is denied that complaint started using generator as the wine shop was again allotted to the complainant upto 31.3.2008.No generator set was found at the shop rather complainant was stealing electricity and it is a clear cut case of theft. It is denied that no last date was mentioned on the bill. No deficiency as alleged is done by opposite parties. The checking was conducted in the presence of the complainant, rather complainant intentionally with malafide intention refused to sign the same. Opposite parties never indulged in any unfair trade practice as alleged. The complainant himself indulged in theft of energy and rather he is liable for criminal liability of the same. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied. The pleas that complaint is not maintainable ;that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint and that their exists no relation of consumer and service provider between the parties have also been taken and have prayed that complaint be dismissed with special costs.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence receipt, Ex.C1, copy of receipt dated 25.6.2007,Ex.C2, photo copy of bill,Ex.C3, photo copy of checking report,Ex.C4, photocopy of bill,Ex.C5, photocopy of bill dated 7.5.2007,Ex.C6 and also tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C7.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.R1 of Lakhwinder Singh, copy of application,Ex.R2, copy of installation order,Ex.R3, copy of disconnection order,Ex.R4, copy of checking report,Ex.R5, copy of letter,Ex.R6, copy of notice dated 8.6.2007,Ex.R7 and affidavit,Ex.R8 of Sham Lal,Lineman.<br /> 6. The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 7. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant had applied for electric connection for three months i.e. from 1.1.2007 to 31.3.2007 and deposited security of Rs.3590/- . He has further contended that the opposite parties released the connection and the same continued for four months due to extension allowed by the Govt.of one month upto 30.4.2007.He has further contended that the said connection remained in operation up to 8.5.2007.He has further argued that he had deposited the last bill of Rs.4871/- along with surcharge of Rs.113/- which was issued on 7.6.2007 vide bill ,Ex.C3.He has also argued that the bill amount of Rs.4984/- was deposited on 25.6.2007 vide receipt.Ex.C2.He has also contended that the complainant received a notice dated 8.6.2007,Ex.C4 from the opposite parties for Rs.69403/- wherein it was alleged that Assistant Superintendent Engineer Enforcement ,Patiala checked the premises of the complainant on 7.6.2007 and found 4.60K.W.load at his site. He has disputed that the site was never checked by the enforcement party on 7.6.2007 and the checking report was never prepared in the presence of the complainant nor complainant refused to sign the same. The complainant has never indulged in the theft of energy. He has further contended that after four months connection was disconnected on 8.5.2007 and the complainant arranged his own generator set as the wine shop was again allotted upto 31.3.2008 and that the demand raised through notice ,Ex.C4, is illegal and that same be quashed.<br /> 8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complainant had applied for temporary connection for running 520 K.W.load at his wine shop vide application,Ex.R2 and electric connection was connected on 21.12.2006 vide,Ex.R3.It is also contended that since there was no request for extension of connection so the said temporary connection of the complainant was disconnected on8.5.2007 vide,Ex.R4.On 7.6.2007 a checking was conducted by flying squad of the opposite parties and the complainant was found stealing electricity energy through a PVC cable directly from pole of the opposite parties to his wine shop. The complainant was indulging in theft of electricity energy by connecting 4.600 KW load illegally. He has further contended that the complainant refused to sign the checking report .The demand notice dated 8.6.2007,Ex.R7 was rightly served upon the complainant and the demand raised therein is legal and valid.<br /> 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 10. Admittedly the complainant had got a temporary connection for three months i.e. from 1.1.2007 to31.3.2007 and the same was disconnected on 8.5.2007 vide,Ex.R4.The premises of the complainant were checked by the flying squad on 7.6.2007 when the complainant was found stealing electricity energy directly from the pole of the opposite parties .So on the alleged date of checking there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief against the opposite parties.<br /> 11. In view of our above discussion we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties. The complaint merits dismissal and is dismissed accordingly. However, under the circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:18.2.2008.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />