DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.102/28.07.2008 Decided on : 04.03.2009 Rattan Singh S/o Sh. Bant Singh S/o Sh.Jangir Singh, resident of Ward No. 8, Bharpur Singh Thakedar wali gali, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Assistance Executive Engineer, Sub Urban, Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. S.K. Singla, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. P.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh. P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh. Sarat Chander, Member. Smt. Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed by Sh. Rattan Singh son of Sh. Bant Singh a resident of Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act') against the Punjab State Electricity Board, (hereinafter called as the board), through its Assistant Executive Engineer, Mansa for giving direction to the opposite party to with draw impugned notice and waive off the amount of Rs.2,84,620/- or to set aside the same with further direction to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-, as compensation and another sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of costs. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that electric connection bearing Account No.AN51/52 has been installed in the name of Contd........2 : 2 : his father Bant Singh in the house in his occupation. The father of the complainant has since expired and after his death, he has been regularly paying the payment of the amount of electricity bills drawn by the opposite party, as such, he is consumer under them, qua the said electric connection. The opposite party has served impugned notice, vide letter No.2157 dated 17.7.2008, upon the complainant, which is illegal and liable to be set aside, because the electric connection installed in the house of the complainant, has no concern with the land where mobile tower by the Reliance Company is being constructed, as such, allegations made by the opposite party, that he had been drawing electric energy for operation of a welding set for use in construction of the mobile tower from the transmission line by use of a hook and by-passing the meter are not correct. It is submitted that infact another electric connection bearing Account No. AN51/0565 is installed in the name of Kaka Singh S/o Sh.Jangir Singh at the place where mobile tower is being constructed by the Reliance Company. It is submitted that opposite party, has raised illegal demand because of agreement between the complainant and the Reliance Company dated 15.6.2008 for construction of mobile tower, which could not be operated before the date fixed. It is further contended that copy of the report, has not been supplied to the complainant and only his signatures have been secured on the checking report and electric connection has not been disconnected, as such, it is apparent that impugned notice issued by the board, is illegal and not based on factual position existing at the spot, because of which complainant, has been subjected to mental and physical harassment. Hence this complaint. On being put to notice, the opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that electric connection has not been transferred in the name of the complainant after death of his father Bant Singh, as such, he is not consumer of electric energy under the opposite party; that the opposite party has filed an Contd........3 : 3 : application for registration of criminal case against the complainant for illegally abstracting electric energy for construction of mobile tower; that he has no locus standi and cause of action, to file the complaint, which is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and is not maintainable; and complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that electric connection is installed in the premises of the complainant in the name of his father and another electric connection might have been issued in the name of Kaka Singh, paternal uncle of the complainant, but it is asserted that officials of the board at the time of checking of the electric meter installed in the name of the father of the complainant found that the welding set was being operated for construction of a mobile tower by use of cable and hook by making a joint in the main transmission line and by passing the electric connection. It is further submitted that electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant was not recording reading, although electricity was being supplied , but after the removal of the loop placed thereon, it started recording consumption of electric energy. It is submitted that welding set which comprised of single rod and cable was recovered from the spot by the members of the checking team, who prepared the memo at the spot, but complainant refused to affix his signatures thereon and in this regard a note has been given on the checking report and impugned notice raising demand of Rs.2,84,620/-, has been rightly issued, as per rules on the subject, and the complainant has himself admitted that he has entered into an agreement with the Reliance Company. Rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the same with costs. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant Exhibit C-1, and copies of documents Ext. C-2 to C-4 before he closed evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite parties has tendered in evidence affidavit Contd........4 : 4 : of Sh.Jagsir Singh, J.E.. Ext.OP-1 and documents Ext.OP-2 to OP-4 including checking report before he closed their evidence. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance. To begin with P.K.Singla, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party, has submitted that as per record maintained by the opposite party, complainant is not consumer of electric energy consumed through the electric meter installed in the house in his possession and he has not filed any application for transfer thereof in his name, after death of his father, as such, he is not consumer of electric energy and, has no locus standi to file the complaint, which is liable to be dismissed, because it is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant Sh. S.K.Singla, Advocate, has submitted that complainant, has inherited the estate of his father and he is in possession of the house in which electric meter is installed, therefore, he being beneficiary and user of electric energy, is consumer and has locus standi, to file the complaint and the same is maintainable, in the Consumer Forum. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, because his possession over the house in which electric connection is installed, is not disputed by the opposite party. It is not their case that after the demise of Bant Singh, the complainant, has not being making the payment of amount of electricity bills consumed through the electric meter in question or is being made by some other person. The averments made in the complaint, that complainant, has inherited the estate of his deceased father are not specifically controverted, in the written version filed by the opposite party. As such, they have been deemed to have been admitted by him. Since the complainant is beneficiary of electric connection and is using the same and is making payment of Contd........5 : 5 : amount of electricity bills drawn upon him, therefore, plea of the opposite party cannot be accepted, that he is not consumer or that he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. In the light of our above discussion we are of the opinion that complaint is maintainable under the Act before the Consumer Forum. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that supply of electric energy for construction of mobile tower by the complainant was being made from the house of his paternal uncle Kaka Singh and opposite party has not disclosed the manner in which the complainant was found committing theft of electric energy in the notice served upon him by use of artificial means and copy of the checking report has neither been supplied to him nor it has been sent by post. Learned counsel argued that as mentioned in the checking report, electric meter installed in the premises of the complainant was not running, as such, inference is that members of the checking team did not visit the premises of the complainant and have planted a false case upon him. Learned counsel further argued that it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, because of which complainant, has been subjected to physical and mental harassment, for which he deserves to get compensation from the opposite party alongwith costs incurred by him for filing the complaint. Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that complainant has admitted the factum of agreement between him and the Reliance Company for construction of mobile tower and the manner in which he was found committing theft of electric energy by applying illegal means is described in the checking report about supply of which a note has been given thereon. Learned counsel further argued that complainant has refused to affix the signatures on the checking report despite his presence, as such, the case set up by the opposite party cannot be said to be false because of concocted version placed by them before the Consumer Forum Contd........6 : 6 : and his complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party, because complainant has categorically admitted that he has entered into an agreement with the Reliance Company for construction of mobile tower. It is not the plea of the complainant that his uncle Kaka Singh is also a part of the said agreement or has permitted him to draw electric energy from the electric connection installed in his house. If the construction was being made of the mobile tower in terms of agreement with the complainant, then without the consent of his uncle, officials of the Reliance Company are not expected to use electric energy through the meter installed in his house or otherwise. The plea of the opposite party, has been consistent as established by the facts borne on record and name of the complainant is in the checking report and impugned notice served upon him and it is established by the duly sworn affidavit of Sh.Jagsir Singh, J.E. of the board. The factum of use of welding set for construction of mobile tower is not disputed by the complainant and officials of the board had given note that he was present at the time of checking of his electric connection, but he refused to affix his signatures on the checking report. As per note given on the impugned notice Ext.C-2, copy of the checking report has been sent to the complainant at his residential address. The copy of the impugned notice and checking report Ext.C-2 and C-3, respectively has come on record from the custody of the complainant. The manner of abstracting of electric energy has also been given in detail by the opposite party in the checking report and also in the impugned notice and no prejudice has been caused to the complainant in this regard. As such, we are constrained to hold that complainant, has failed to prove that demand raised by the opposite party is unjust or against the facts prevailing at the time of inspection of his premises. Therefore, no ground is made out for giving direction to waive of or set aside the same and for award of compensation and costs in favour Contd........7 : 7 : of the complainant as prayed for in the complaint. Resultantly, complaint is dismissed. However in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 04.03.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
