DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.171/03.10.2007 Decided on : 12.06.2008 Ramesh Chand S/o Sh.Roshan Lal, Arya Samaj Wali Gali, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS S.D.O., City, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa. ..... Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.K.Singla, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Naval Goyal, counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Ramesh Chand (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa (hereinafter called as the opposite party) for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to withdraw notice dated 16.1.2006 and 19.09.2007 and also pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. Admitted facts of the case are that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party with regard to electric connection bearing Account No.AS34/131. In compliance of the order dated 13.06.2006 of this Forum, on 10.07.2006, the complainant had moved an application for Contd......2 : 2 : transfer of the electric connection in his name. But the OP Board did not take any action on the said application. The opposite party had issued a letter dated 19.9.2007 and in compliance of the said letter the complainant had duly filled in the A&A Form and deposited Rs.2590/-. The connection was initially in the name of Sadhu Singh S/o Sh.Roshan Singh. The opposite party had again issued a notice dated 1.6.2006 bearing No.86 vide which an amount of Rs.6529/- was demanded from the complainant. The demand is alleged to be illegal. Both the notices dated 19.9.2007 and 1.6.2006 had been wrongly issued to the complainant. The complainant had never committed any theft of energy as the electric meter is installed outside his residential premises. The complainant further alleges that the officials of the OP Board had obtained his signatures on the blank papers. The complainant further claims to have suffered mental tension and physical harassment on account of illegal demand raised vide notice dated 16.1.2006 and 19.9.2007. The opposite party filed its written version and raised certain legal objections regarding the maintainability of the complaint, it being a theft case. On merits, it was contended that initially the electric connection was in the name of Sadhu Singh and lateron the complainant got the same transferred in his name by depositing the requisite fee. An amount of Rs.6529/- on account of theft penalty were standing outstanding against the said connection and the complainant is liable to deposit the same. The premises of the complainant was checked on 13.01.2006 by Sh.R.K.Garg, A.E.E., PSEB, Mansa and at the spot the electric motor was found running, but the pulse indication of the meter was not found to be flickering. The meter was installed on the main gate duly sealed in the Contd........3 : 3 : MCB. Upon ringing the door bell by the checking officials, the complainant did not open the door at once and instead went inside the house and in no time the pulse indication of the meter started flickering. Thereafter the complainant opened the door. When the complainant failed to handover the device through which he was indulging in theft of energy, his electric meter was removed on the spot. The electric supply to the complainant was, therefore, disconnected at the spot, due to it being a theft case. The checking report has been lodged in the Checking Register No.85 at Sr.No.36 and the complainant had duly signed the entry. Copy of the checking report was duly handed over to the complainant. On account of the above report, letter No.86 dated 16.1.2006 demanding Rs.6529/- was issued to Sadhu Singh, which was received by his representative Ramesh Chand according to the rules and regulations of the Board. The demand of Rs.6592/- raised from Sadhu Singh is claimed to be perfectly legal and valid. All other allegations were denied by the opposite party 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-3, checking report dated 13.01.2006, indicates that the only allegation was that the meter was not flickering, though the electricity was in use. The mode of theft, according to the Checking Staff, was that the meter was installed in the MCB on the outer gate of the house of the complainant and the complainant had been Contd........4 : 4 : using a device to control the electric supply. The electric motor was found running, but the pulse indication of the meter was not found to be flickering. When the complainant had removed the device , the meter started flickering. 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. It is strange that the meter of the complainant was installed at the outer gate of his house, but he was alleged to be drawing electricity by using a device, which the OP had failed to produce before this Forum. Further that the signatures of Ramesh Chand appended on the checking report do not tally with his signatures appearing on the complaint. The OP can be safely held to be deficient in service and no inference merely from the checking report can be drawn about the theft of energy by the complainant. The demand raised by the opposite party 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 U/S 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 were also not duly complied with by the OP Board itself. As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, we allow the complaint and set-aside the notice dated 16.01.2006 vide which an amount of Rs.6529/- was demanded from the complainant. 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.
