DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.172/21.10.2008 Decided on : 29.04.2009 Sh. Sukhdev Ram S/o Sh. Shubhkaran Dass, Village Nangal Kalan, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, through its Executive Engineer, Mansa. 2.Sub Divisional Officer, (City), Punjab State Electricity Board, Mansa. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.S.S.Grewal, Advocate counsel for the complainant. Sh. Bharpur Singh, Advocate counsel for Opposite Parties. 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. Sukhdev Ram son of Sh. Shubhkaran Dass, a resident of Village Nangal Kalan, Tehsil and District Mansa, against Punjab State Electricity Board, (in short called the 'board'), through its Executive Engineer and Sub Divisional Officer, (City), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short called the 'Act'), for setting aside impugned Memo dated 3.10.2008 and award of compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- for physical and mental harassment and costs in the sum of Rs.2,000/- on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: Contd.......2 : 2 : 2. That he has secured electric connection from the opposite parties for domestic purposes and, has been regularly making payment of amount of electricity bills, drawn by him, as such, he is consumer of electric energy under him, but vide letter No.2285 dated 3.10.2008, he has raised demand of Rs.38,673/-, on the allegation that he was caught running 5 BHP electric motor illegally by drawing electric energy from the main transmission line. The said notice is illegal and is liable to be set aside, because the complainant never operated any electric motor for drawing electric energy in the manner alleged by the opposite parties and he has never indulged in theft of electric energy. It is submitted that name of the complainant and his parentage has been corrected in the impugned notice, as such, factum of checking of the electric meter installed in his premises is not free from suspicion. It is also alleged that due to service of impugned notice, the complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment, and the opposite parties have failed to withdraw the same inspite of being approached for the purpose, hence this complaint. 3. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint; that he has concealed the material facts from the knowledge of this Forum about the checking of electric meter installed in his premises, as such, he is not entitled to relief prayed for in the complaint and his complaint pertain to commission of theft of electric energy, therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction, to entertain and try it. On merits, the factum of issuance of electric connection in the name of the complainant for domestic purposes and service of impugned notice by the opposite parties upon him vide Memo dated 3.10.2008 is not denied. It is also not denied that he is consumer of electric energy or that any amount was outstanding towards him before service of the impugned notice. However, it is submitted that on 15.9.2008, electric connection installed in the premises of the Contd........3 : 3 : complainant was checked by Sh.R.K.Goyal, Executive Engineer of the board and the said officer found complainant committing theft of electric energy by drawing electric energy directly from transmission line by use of a cable, as such, amount of Rs.38,673/-, has been raised after provisional assessment on the basis of the checking report through the impugned memo dated 3.10.2008. It is also contended that checking report and site plan was prepared at the spot in the presence of the complainant, but he refused to affix his signatures. Rest of the averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs. 4. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit, Exhibit C-1, copy of impugned notice Exhibit C-2 and bill dated 7.4.2007 Ext.C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party has also tendered in evidence, copies of documents, Ext.OP-1 to OP-4 and closed the evidence, on their behalf. 5. 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. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant, Sh.S.S.Grewal, Advocate, has submitted that checking of the electric meter installed in the house of the complainant, has not been done in his presence and checking report neither bears his signatures, nor the signatures of his representative. Learned counsel, has argued that neither copy of the checking report has been supplied nor details of evidence gathered at the time of checking have been given in the checking report and the averments made in the written version by the opposite parties are not corroborated by any evidence. Learned counsel further urged that there is non compliance of rules framed by the board on the subject and there being deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, impugned notice is not sustainable and is Contd........4 : 4 : liable to be set aside and complainant is entitled to seek compensation and costs from the opposite parties, as demanded in the instant complaint. 7. On the other hand, Sh.Bharpur Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite parties, has submitted that checking has been done in the presence of the complainant, but he has refused to append his signatures on the checking report and a note has been specifically incorporated by the members of the checking team, describing the manner of commission of theft of electric energy in the material particulars of the checking report. Learned counsel further argued that complainant has failed to avail the opportunity of being heard and has not filed any objection against the demand notice, as such, opposite parties cannot be said to be deficient in service for want of compliance of technicalities of procedure alone. Learned counsel argued that initial onus was on the complainant to prove his case, but he has failed to discharge the same, as such, complaint deserves to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 8. Admittedly, electric connection is got installed in the house of the complainant for domestic purposes. It is also not disputed that any amount was outstanding towards him on account of electricity charges before service of impugned notice raising demand of Rs.38,673/-. The complainant has denied the factum of checking of his premises in his presence in his complaint, whereas Sh. R.K.Goyal, Executive Engineer in his affidavit Ext.OP-1 has reiterated the averments made in the written version by the opposite parties. The part of the name of the complainant is found rectified in the notice Ext.C-2 served upon him by the opposite parties, but this fact is not enough to project the allegations made by the opposite parties in the written version. However, the copy of the checking report Ext.OP-4, tendered in evidence by them, does not bear the signatures of the complainant or his representative. The report also does not contain the details of evidence gathered by the above named officer, as envisaged in Clause 3(d) of Circular No.53/2006, issued by the board on Contd........5 : 5 : the subject. The opposite parties have also not produced the cable or any other artificial mean allegedly used by the complainant for commission of theft of electric energy by drawing the same directly from transmission line. As such, factum of checking is not free from suspicion. Moreover, there is no note on the checking report regarding supply of copy thereof to the complainant. The opposite parties have also not produced any documentary evidence to establish that report of checking was subsequently affixed on the premises of the complainant after he refused to affix his signatures or that copy thereof was subsequently sent to him through registered post or any other means as envisaged in Clause 3(e) of the above referred circular, issued by the board on the subject. Therefore there is clear non compliance of the above said provisions on the part of the members of the checking team. As such, in our considered opinion, complainant cannot be burdened with amount demanded from him on the basis of impugned Memo Ext.C-2, which is apparently illegal and arbitrary. The mere fact that complainant has not availed opportunity of being heard and has not filed any objection, is no ground to draw adverse inference against him. Therefore, we are of the opinion that notice served upon the complainant by the opposite parties raising demand of Rs.38,673/-, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Since the complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to service of illegal demand, therefore, he is also entitled to payment of adequate amount on account of costs and compensation. 9. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and we set aside the impugned notice, Ext.C-2, served upon the complainant, vide letter No.2285 dated 3.10.2008 raising demand of Rs.38,673/-, and burden the opposite parties, in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation, and in the sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs with further direction to refund the amount of Rs.13,000/-, if paid, by the complainant in terms of the interim order dated 22.10.2008, with interest at the rate of 9 percent, from the date Contd........6 : 6 : of deposit, till the date of actual payment. The compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 10. The copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 29.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
