DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 47 of 6.2.2007<br /> Decided on: 7.2.2008<br /> <br /> Sh.Ranbir Singh sonof Arjan Singh aged 50 years resident of village Tohra Teh Nabha District Patiala.<br /> <br /> -----------Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board ,through its Secretary, the Mall,<br /> Patiala.<br /> 2. Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Tohra,Teh<br /> Nabha,District Patiala through its S.D.O.<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.Sudhir Kumar,adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Sh.Pawan Puri,adv. <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant,Ranbir 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 there is one connection in the name of the complainant at his premises bearing a/c No.KT-14/172 which was installed by the P.S.E.B. so many years back. That the complainant is depositing the electricity charges consumption so demanded by the electricity Board from time to time and there is nothing due against the complainant. The meter reader of the electricity board used to take the reading regularly and the said reader never gave any remarks to the P.S.E.B.The complainant is paying the bills regularly. That in the month of November/2006 on dated 14.11.2006 the complainant received a notice from the P.S.E.B. alleging therein that a checking was got conducted on 9.9.2006 and found that the complainant is involved in theft of energy by connecting a PVC from the main meter. As such the P.S.E.B. raised the illegal demand of Rs.14594/-from the complainant and the P.S.E.B. directed the complainant to deposit the said amount of Rs.14594/- within seven days from the receipt of the notice sent by the P.S.E.B. On receipt of the notice dated 14.11.2006 the complainant approached to the electricity board and asked about the illegal demand so raised by the P.S.E.B.But the opposite parties electricity board employees flatly refused to give the details of the same and threatened the complainant that if the complainant will not deposit the amount of Rs.14594/- within the specified period then the P.S.E.B. will disconnect the connection of the complainant. In fact no such checking was made by the P.S.E.B. in the presence of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant only came to know of the alleged checking when the complainant received the notice of dated 14.11.2006.The notice of dated 14.11.2006 is totally illegal null and void and arbitrary and without following the rules and regulations of the P.S.E.B.That the notice in which the P.S.E.B. has shown that the complainant has committed theft of energy so mentioned in the alleged notice of dated 14.11.2006 is against the rules. Moreover no signatures were obtained by the P.S.E.B. at the time of the alleged checking which shows that the notice of dated 14.11.2006 is totally wrong and based on wrong facts just to harass the complainant and other occupants of the village. Thus the demand so raised by the P.S.E.B. is totally illegal null and void which is to be quashed. It is obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to get the signatures of the consumer when the checking is alleged to be made. That as per the consumption pattern of the complainant the bill of the electricity falls within the preview ofRs.1000/- to Rs.1500/-.It is also pointed out that now theP.S.E.B.entered the amount of Rs.14594/- in the bill of dated 20.1.2007meaning thereby raised the demand of Rs.15020/- in total in the bill of dated 20.1.2007.Thus the bill of dated 20.1.2007 is also illegal null and void and has been issued arbitrary. It is also pointed out that the P.S.E.B.installed the electronic meter at the premises of the complainant. The question of any theft of energy does not arise. That the electricity board is unnecessarily harassing the complainant by one way or the other and giving the threats to the complainant to disconnect the connection of the complainant in case the amount of Rs.14594/- is not deposited. The threatened action of the P.S.E.B.is totally illegal, null and void and arbitrary. The complainant is mentally harassed by the opposite parties by sending such illegal notice and by raising such illegal demands. As such the complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.30,000/-on account of the unnecessarily harassment. That no theft has ever been committed by the complainant and the opposite parties have raised a false allegation against the complainant. Even the opposite parties under the garb of such illegal notice is trying to disconnect the connection of the complainant which the opposite parties have no right title or authority. That there is clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite parties who violated the rules and regulations of the P.S.E.B. sales manual. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the case of the complainant. It is admitted that the complainant was issued a notice vide notice memo No.2003 dated 14.11.2006 vide which it was informed to the consumer that his connection was checked on 9.9.2006 by the concerned SDO of Bhadson Sub Division and had found at the site that the complainant is committing the theft of energy by bye passing the meter. The connection of the complainant was checked by the concerned SDO on 9.9.2006 who had found at the site that the complainant is committing the theft of electricity energy by bye passing the meter. The complainant was issued the notice dated 14.11.2006 vide which he was directed to make the payment of Rs.14,594/- as penalty for committing the theft of electricity energy. It is denied that the complainant was not committing the theft of electricity energy or the demand is illegal. It is denied that the detail of the demand was not supplied to the consumer. In fact, the detail has itself been mentioned in the notice dated 14.11.2006.The board has the right and authority to disconnect the connection of the consumer in case he fails to deposit the amount of penalty as has been raised by the Board. It is denied that the notice dated 14.11.2006 is illegal .The complainant had refused to sign the checking report. It is denied that the notice dated 14.11.2006 is wrong or against the facts. It is denied that the demand is illegal or is liable to be quashed. The consumer was committing the theft of electricity energy, so the meter was not recording the correct consumption. It is denied that the consumption pattern of the complainant of the electricity was within the range of Rs.1000/- to Rs.1500/-.It is denied that there is no question of theft of electricity energy or the bill dated 20.1.2007 is illegal in any manner. It is denied that the board is harassing the complainant or is giving threats to the complainant or the demand is illegal or the complainant is entitled to any compensation. The demand is legal and the board has the right and authority to disconnect the connection in case the consumer is caught of committing the theft of electricity energy. There is no deficiency in service. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C1, letter dated 14.11.2006,Ex.C2 and bills Exs.C3 to C7.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.R1 of Santokh Singh, affidavit, Ex.R2 of Rajinder Giri, copy of checking report,Ex.R3 and demand notice,Ex.R4.<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. There was a charge of theft of energy against the complainant .In the register where the noting is made regarding the alleged theft there are no signatures of the complainant or any of his representative. It has also not been suggested any where that the consumer or his representative had refused to sign in the register in which the report regarding the alleged theft of energy was recorded. The perusal of the checking report,Ex.R3, shows that it does not bear the signatures of the complainant or his representative. Moreover there is also no mention on the report that the consumer or his representative has refused to sign the same. The charge of theft of energy is a criminal charge and a strict proof is required to establish the offence as is required before a criminal court. Of course niceties /technicalities of Evidence Act regarding the production of evidence can be over looked. However, the charge has to be proved. As observed, in the present case neither there are signatures of the complainant or her representative on the report nor there is any collateral evidence of taking into possession the PVC wire allegedly used for stealing electricity energy. We are of the view that the P.S.E.B. could not raise the demand on the bare report of the Er.Rajinder Giri,Sub Divisional Officer, which has not even been signed by the complainant or his representative .On this point we are supported by the authority Charan Singh Vs. Chairman P.S.E.B. and others 2006(1)CLT 659.<br /> 8. As a result we hold the demand to be unjustified amounting to deficiency of service and quash the same with Rs.1000/-as costs of the complaint to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The opposite parties are at liberty to issue the correct bill on the basis of the actual consumption .The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:7.2.2008.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br />