PSEB V/S Sat Pal - Consumer Court Case

Punjab

Mansa

CC/08/130

Sat Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSEB - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Satish Singla

27 Mar 2009

ORDER

consumer forum mansa
consumer forum mansa
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/130

Sat Pal						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
PSEB						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. Neena Rani Gupta 2. Sh Sarat Chander

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.130/29.08.2008 Decided on : 27.03.2009 Sh.Satpal S/o Sh. Mohal Lal, Veer Nagar Mohalla, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Distribution, Punjab State Electricity Board, City, Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. S.K.Singla, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member Sh.Satpal (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board through its Assistant Executive Engineer (hereinafter called as opposite Party) for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to set aside letter No. 1904 dated 22.8.2008 and also pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- regarding mental tension and costs in the sum of Rs.1000/-. Admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant had obtained electric connection bearing Account No.BN46/537 for domestic purposes and he had been paying the electric consumption charges from time to time, as such, he is the consumer of the opposite party The opposite party served notice, vide letter No. 1904 dated 22.8.2008 , upon him raising demand of Rs.19438/-, which is illegal and is liable to be set aside, Contd........2 : 2 : because it has been issued by them, on the allegations of theft of electric energy by use of a loop i.e. artificial devise in an unauthorized manner. Neither his signatures has been obtained on the checking report, nor any copy thereof has been supplied to him. The opposite party was thus stated to be deficient in service. Hence this complaint. The OP in their written version challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was contended that the complainant is bound to deposit the amount mentioned in the notice because he was found indulging in theft of energy by use of artificial means. Demand has been raised after overhauling the account of the complainant because he was caught drawing more energy than the sanctioned load of 3.68 KW. It being a case of theft of energy, the jurisdiction of this Forum has also been challenged. It was further submitted that the complainant, is not the 'consumer' within the purview of its definition given in the Act. It was also contended that copy of checking report was sent to the complainant along with the notice. It was denied that the demand was illegal and the OP was deficient in service towards the complainant. 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 record of the case. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that checking report did not bear the signatures of the complainant and no documentary evidence has been produced by the OP that copy of the checking report was supplied to the complainant through registered post. Even the name of the person who refused to append his signatures and time of checking has not been disclosed by the OP in the checking report. Load of electric energy at the time of checking has not been worked out and Contd........3 : 3 : instrument used by the complainant for controlling the reading has not been produced. The theft of energy by the complainant is thus not proved. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has submitted that complainant has refused to affix his signatures and he has not alleged any enmity with the officials of the checking team and the complainant has failed to avail opportunity afforded to him or to file objection within the period stipulated in the notice after assessment made by the assessing authority. For the aforesaid reasons, the complaint deserves dismissal. The checking report Ext.OP-1 does not bear the signatures of the complainant. It merely contains the remarks as 'refusal to affix signatures'. The name of the person who has refused to do so has not been mentioned therein and time of checking is not disclosed. The checking report also does not bear the signatures of the Assessing Authority and also do not contain the details of evidence gathered by the members of the checking staff, as envisaged in Clause 3(d) of the Circular No.53/2006, issued by the board on the subject. In the course of arguments, the instrument used for committing theft has not been produced and the officials comprising the checking team have not worked out the load of electricity drawn by the complainant at the time of checking . The OP has also not produced any evidence to show that electric meter was removed and got checked from the M.E. Laboratory. Therefore, the fact regarding the checking of electric meter cannot be assumed on the basis of the affidavit of Sh.Amar Singh, J.E., especially when, his name has not been incorporated in the name of the members of the checking team. There may not be any enmity between the complainant and the officials of the board, but the fact regarding theft has to be established by cogent and convincing evidence and it cannot be assumed on the basis of conjectures and surmises. There is no note on the checking report Ext.OP-1 that the complainant or his representative present at the time of checking had refused to accept the copy of the checking report or that the same was sent Contd........4 : 4 : to him by registered post, which is mandatory requirement under the rules framed by the board. As per Clause 3(e) of the Circular No.53/2006, issued by the board on the subject, the opposite parties are supposed to send the copy of the checking report to the consumer subsequently by post in case checking has not been done in his absence, but the OP has not produced any such record showing that copy of the checking report was sent to the complainant through registered post or by any other means. In view of the above said facts, we have come to the conclusion that the OP has failed to discharge the initial onus placed on them by establishing that the complainant was indulging in theft of energy by use of artificial means. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP in raising huge amount through the impugned notice Ext.C-2 and the complainant is entitled to seek compensation and costs. Resultantly, we accept the complaint and and set aside the impugned notice Ext.C-2 and the opposite party is burdened in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, as compensation and a sum of Rs.1,000/-, as costs, incurred by him, in filing of the instant complaint. They are further directed to refund the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant in term of interim order dated 29.08.2008, along with interest, at the rate of 9 percent per annum, from the date of deposit, till date of actual payment with the further direction to not to disconnect his electric connection for non-deposit of the amount of the impugned notice. The compliance of the order be made within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 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 27.03.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.130/29.08.2008 Decided on : 27.03.2009 Sh.Satpal S/o Sh. Mohal Lal, Veer Nagar Mohalla, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Distribution, Punjab State Electricity Board, City, Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. S.K.Singla, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.S.P.Gupta, Advocate counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member Sh.Satpal (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board through its Assistant Executive Engineer (hereinafter called as opposite Party) for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to set aside letter No. 1904 dated 22.8.2008 and also pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- regarding mental tension and costs in the sum of Rs.1000/-. Admitted facts of this complaint are that the complainant had obtained electric connection bearing Account No.BN46/537 for domestic purposes and he had been paying the electric consumption charges from time to time, as such, he is the consumer of the opposite party The opposite party served notice, vide letter No. 1904 dated 22.8.2008 , upon him raising demand of Rs.19438/-, which is illegal and is liable to be set aside, Contd........2 : 2 : because it has been issued by them, on the allegations of theft of electric energy by use of a loop i.e. artificial devise in an unauthorized manner. Neither his signatures has been obtained on the checking report, nor any copy thereof has been supplied to him. The opposite party was thus stated to be deficient in service. Hence this complaint. The OP in their written version challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was contended that the complainant is bound to deposit the amount mentioned in the notice because he was found indulging in theft of energy by use of artificial means. Demand has been raised after overhauling the account of the complainant because he was caught drawing more energy than the sanctioned load of 3.68 KW. It being a case of theft of energy, the jurisdiction of this Forum has also been challenged. It was further submitted that the complainant, is not the 'consumer' within the purview of its definition given in the Act. It was also contended that copy of checking report was sent to the complainant along with the notice. It was denied that the demand was illegal and the OP was deficient in service towards the complainant. 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 record of the case. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that checking report did not bear the signatures of the complainant and no documentary evidence has been produced by the OP that copy of the checking report was supplied to the complainant through registered post. Even the name of the person who refused to append his signatures and time of checking has not been disclosed by the OP in the checking report. Load of electric energy at the time of checking has not been worked out and Contd........3 : 3 : instrument used by the complainant for controlling the reading has not been produced. The theft of energy by the complainant is thus not proved. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has submitted that complainant has refused to affix his signatures and he has not alleged any enmity with the officials of the checking team and the complainant has failed to avail opportunity afforded to him or to file objection within the period stipulated in the notice after assessment made by the assessing authority. For the aforesaid reasons, the complaint deserves dismissal. The checking report Ext.OP-1 does not bear the signatures of the complainant. It merely contains the remarks as 'refusal to affix signatures'. The name of the person who has refused to do so has not been mentioned therein and time of checking is not disclosed. The checking report also does not bear the signatures of the Assessing Authority and also do not contain the details of evidence gathered by the members of the checking staff, as envisaged in Clause 3(d) of the Circular No.53/2006, issued by the board on the subject. In the course of arguments, the instrument used for committing theft has not been produced and the officials comprising the checking team have not worked out the load of electricity drawn by the complainant at the time of checking . The OP has also not produced any evidence to show that electric meter was removed and got checked from the M.E. Laboratory. Therefore, the fact regarding the checking of electric meter cannot be assumed on the basis of the affidavit of Sh.Amar Singh, J.E., especially when, his name has not been incorporated in the name of the members of the checking team. There may not be any enmity between the complainant and the officials of the board, but the fact regarding theft has to be established by cogent and convincing evidence and it cannot be assumed on the basis of conjectures and surmises. There is no note on the checking report Ext.OP-1 that the complainant or his representative present at the time of checking had refused to accept the copy of the checking report or that the same was sent Contd........4 : 4 : to him by registered post, which is mandatory requirement under the rules framed by the board. As per Clause 3(e) of the Circular No.53/2006, issued by the board on the subject, the opposite parties are supposed to send the copy of the checking report to the consumer subsequently by post in case checking has not been done in his absence, but the OP has not produced any such record showing that copy of the checking report was sent to the complainant through registered post or by any other means. In view of the above said facts, we have come to the conclusion that the OP has failed to discharge the initial onus placed on them by establishing that the complainant was indulging in theft of energy by use of artificial means. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP in raising huge amount through the impugned notice Ext.C-2 and the complainant is entitled to seek compensation and costs. Resultantly, we accept the complaint and and set aside the impugned notice Ext.C-2 and the opposite party is burdened in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, as compensation and a sum of Rs.1,000/-, as costs, incurred by him, in filing of the instant complaint. They are further directed to refund the amount, if any, deposited by the complainant in term of interim order dated 29.08.2008, along with interest, at the rate of 9 percent per annum, from the date of deposit, till date of actual payment with the further direction to not to disconnect his electric connection for non-deposit of the amount of the impugned notice. The compliance of the order be made within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 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 27.03.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.

......................Neena Rani Gupta
......................Sh Sarat Chander