District Consumer Disputes Redressel Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib Complaint No.270dt 12/12/07 Date of Decision:14 /05/08 Sukhwinder Singh s/o Kartar Singh R/o Village Pawala, P.O Machhli Kalan, Tehsil Bassi Pathana Distt Fatehgarh Sahib. Complainant Versus 1.Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Secretary. 2.Sub Divisional Officer,Punjab State Electricity Board, Sub Division Khera Gajju, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala. 3.Executive Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala. Opposite Parties Present:- Sh. J.S. Bhullar, counsel for the complainant Sh. Vinay Sood, counsel for the opposite parties. ORDER Sukhwinder Singh had directed this complaint against Punjab State Electricity Board and others by alleging that he has electricity connection No. GF35/0724K and that he is not a defaulter. It is also alleged that the opposite party have sent a notice/bill dt. 26/11/07 showing the arrears worth Rs. 11574/- and that he has deposited Rs 310/- as consumption charges. It is also alleged that in the notice/bill the allegation of theft of power has been mentioned which is illegal and thus he had filed this complaint. 2) The opposite parties have contested the complaint and raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complaint is misuse and abuse of the process of the law, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexation and that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands. On merits it is alleged that the complainant has an electricity connection . It is also alleged that the officials of the opposite parties have visited the house of the complainant on 20/11/07 and complainant was found indulging the theft by making joint in the service wire of the meter and thus he was committing theft of electricity but he has refused to sign the checking report. The opposite parties have denied the other allegations. 3) Counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex C-1, notice dt. 26/11/07 Ex C-2, copy of bill dt. 6/11/07 Ex C-3 and closed the evidence. 4) Counsel for the opposite parties have tendered in evidence affidavit of M.L. Kamboj SDO Ex R-1, connection disconnection order Ex R-2, notice Ex R-3, checking report Ex R-4 and closed the evidence. 5) We have gone through the record and have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. 6) Ld counsel for the opposite parties has urged that this Forum has no jurisdiction and he has referred to 2006(2)CLT page 212 Delhi Vidyut Board versus Devendra Singh and another wherein it has been held as under:- Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(c)-Complaint- Electricity theft-case of-issue of theft/dishonest abstraction of electrical energy do not fall in any of the sub-clauses of sub-Section(c) of Section 2 of the Act-It cannot form subject matter of proceedings before the Authorities under the CP Act (No) 7) Ld. Counsel for the complainant has referred to1994(1)CLT page 417 in HSEB vs. Krishan Devi wherein it has been held as under;- Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 15-Appeal-Electricity- Theft-What may first be noticed is the fact that admittedly the impugned inspection report did not bear the signatures of either the consumer or any one of his representative-Nor is it is appellant's case that the said report was at any time served upon the consumer or any opportunity afforded to him-Whole action Seems to be patently violative of the statutory conditions Nos 24(A)(ii)(3) and 24-A(v) (i) duly notified the appellant Board itself 8) Ld. Counsel for the complainant has also referred to 2006(1)CLT page 659 Charan Singh Versus Chairman, PSEB wherein it has been held as under:- (i)Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section3-Additional remedy-Jurisdiction-Consumer Forum-Even if Civil Court has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act is not barred-The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the other remedies available in other statutes/C.P.C (ii)Electricity Supply-Allegation of theft-Demand-Raising of-Challenge as to-Charge of theft of energy is a criminal charge and a strict proof is required to establish the offence as is required before the criminal court- Niceties/technicalities of Evidence Act regarding production of evidence can be overlooked-However, charge has to be proved-Neither there are signatures of the complainant or his representative in the report nor there is any collateral evidence of taking into possession, the PVC wire allegedly used for stealing electricity energy-PSEB could not raise demand on the bare report of the meter inspector which has not even been signed by the complainant. 9) In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the complainant has electricity connection. The checking report is Ex R-4 dt. 20/11/06 wherein it is mentioned that the complainant has installed a joint in the service wire meter and that it is a case of theft of electricity energy but the said report does not bear the signature of the complainant or his representative nor any memo has been prepared which would have been attested by any panch, sarpanch or any independent witness of the village. Therefore the recovery of the amount Rs. 11574/-as mentioned in the notice Ex C-2 dt 26/11/07 which is based on the checking report Ex R-4 dt.20/11/07 is illegal and is a matter of deficiency of service. 10) For the forgoing reasons and discussion we accept the complaint and quash the recovery of Rs. 11574/- as mentioned in the notice Ex C-2 dt. 26/11/07 . For mental agony and harassment the complainant is entitled to Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- as cost of the complaint. 11 Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter file be consigned to the record room. Announced : 14/5/08 Gurdev Singh President Distt Consumer Forum Fatehgarh Sahib Veena Chahal Member Sher Singh Sidhu Member
