DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.316 of 6.8.2007<br /> Decided on: 28.1.2008<br /> <br /> 1. Tara Singh s/o Pakhar Singh aged 80 years R/0 Village kheri Mania<br /> Distt. Patiala<br /> 2. Parminder Singh s/o Ranjit Singh aged about 16 years through his <br /> father and guardian Ranjit Singh s/o Bhupinder Singh aged 46 years <br /> r/o Village Kheri Mania Tehsil and District Patiala. <br /> <br /> <br /> -----------Complainants<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Xen, Enforcement Sh.Suresh Kumar Singla, Administration Sub<br /> Division, P.S.E.B., Kalyan Rakhra.<br /> 2. SDO, Surat Singh, P.S.E.B.Sub Division, Kalyan Rakhra.<br /> 3. Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, Head Office, <br /> The Mall, Patiala.<br /> <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.Sameer Gupta, adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Sh.G.S.Dhaliwal, adv.<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainants have 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 the complainant No.1 Tara Singh S/o Pakhar Singh had inherited one motor connection of 7.5 BHP bearing a/c No.SD-6-282 situated in land bearing Khasra No.133(0-5) of Khewat Khatoni No.64/107,village Kheri Mania,District Patiala vide a partition effected in the ancestral land of his father vide which the complainant No.1 had received both the land of his share and the motor connection. That the complainant No.1 has been using the said electricity motor connection regularly ever since the execution of the said partition deed and subsequently, certain dispute arose between the complainant No.1 and one Bhupinder Singh his brother regarding utilization of the said motor connection pertaining to which a civil suit for permanent injunction was instituted in the court of Smt.Sonia,Civil Judge,Jr.Division,Patiala and the Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct status-quo on the stay application of the complainant in the said civil suit vide order dated 25.9.2006.That in the said suit, the plaintiff/present complainant No.1 had sought additional relief of injunction against the defendant in that suit, Bhupinder Singh from shifting the said motor connection to some other place by getting the same disconnected or otherwise. That now the defendant in the said suit Bhupinder Singh s/o Pakhar Singh who is the brother of the complainant No.1 and maintains good relations with opposite parties No.1&2 is trying to unduly harass the complainant and his family so as to prevent them from using the said motor connection and to this effect, the opposite parties No.1&2 at the behest of said Bhupinder Singh visited the motor connection of the complainant firstly on 27.7.2007under the guise of checking and imposed penalty of Rs.12,930/-on complainant No.2 for illegally running a 10BHP motor and resultantly, held liable for theft and the penalty aforementioned.Subsequently, again after a gap of three days on 30.7.2007 the motor connection of the complainant No.1 was again checked by opposite party No.2 and again penalty of Rs.12,930/- for theft for running 10 BHP motor illegally was imposed. That the acts of the opposite parties in victimizing the complainants is intentional premeditated planned manner so as to harass them, speaks volumes of their malafide conduct and intention. That so much so that the opposite parties did not even take care to see to it that a notice was being issued to a minor and as such was illegal and could not be sustained. That the act of the opposite parties in issuing the notices to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service since the motor running at the spot is running with a valid connection and is not running illegally and further more, the motor is of 7.5 BHP capacity and not of 10 BHP capacity and the complainants are ready to have independent verification of the same conducted any time. That due to the issuance of the notices the complainants have been made to stop user of the motor connection resulting in damage to the crops of the complainants standing in 20 bighas of land causing an estimated loss of Rs.80,000/-@Rs.4,000/-per bigha.That the act of the opposite parties in issuing the notice falls within the category of deficiency in service, since the electricity connection for the motor in question is sanctioned and the motor is not running illegally and as such notices are liable to be declared null and void. Further holding that the complainants are not under obligation to pay the amount as assessed in the notices. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is denied that the complainants are consumers as defined under the Act and are entitled to institute the present complaint. An agricultural electric motor connection bearing account No.SD-6-282 is running and is situated in land bearing Khasra No.133 (0-5),Khewat/Khatoni No.64/107 in the revenue limits of village Kheri Mania,District Patiala.The electric connection SD-6-282 stands in the name of Sh.Bhupinder Singh brother of the complainant with whom the complainant alleges dispute.Sh.Bhupinder Singh has not been made a party to the complainant as such the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties .The opposite parties are not party to the said suit. That the connection No.SD-6-282 was checked and penalty of Rs.12930/- vide a bill cum notice dated 27.7.2007 was imposed. It is further admitted that the connection was again checked on 30.7.2007 and again a penalty of Rs.12930/- vide bill cum notice dated 30.7.2007 was imposed. It is denied that opposite parties are checking the connection and imposing the penalty at the behest of Bhupinder Singh or are working in connivance in whatsoever manner with Bhupinder Singh. That the connection No.SD-6-282 stands in the name of Sh.Bhupinder Singh son of Sh.Pakhar Singh. This connection was checked on 26.7.2007 by Xen (Enforcement) vide ECR No.3258, page No.43-A.The checking team found that the connection was in the name of Bhupinder Singh but was being run by Ranjit Singh and it was also found that the connection had been shifted from the original place and was being run at about 50 meters from the original place. It was also found that a 10 BHP motor was running on the spot. On enquiry the team also found that no shifting charges as applicable as per the board rules had not been paid. The checking report was signed by Parminder Singh son of Ranjit Singh as the connection was not being run by the original consumer, but was being run by Ranjit Singh. As the connection had been shifted by Ranjit Singh without prior permission of the Board and as the shifting charges has not been paid as such this amounted to a case of theft and running the connection illegally. Thus a bill cum notice No.27/234 dated 27.7.2007 was sent to Parminder Singh son of Ranjit Singh, as he was running the connection illegally and was present at the spot at the time of checking for an amount of Rs.12,930/-.This amount has not been deposited till date. The connection was again checked by JE-1 on 30.7.2007 vide checking register No.210 page no.81.It was found that the bore well where the original connection was installed had been closed and Tara Singh son of Pakhar Singh was running a 10 B.H.P.submersible motor on a bore well at a distance of about 25 karams from the original bore well by using private cable. Tara Singh was present on the spot, but refused to sign the checking report. As the connection was not being run by the original consumer but was being run by Tara Singh. The connection had been shifted by Ranjit Singh/Tara Singh without prior permission of the Board and as the shifting charges have not been paid as such this amounted to a case of theft and running the connection illegally. This a bill cum notice No.31/324 dated 30.7.2007 was sent to Sh.Tara Singh son of Sh.Pakhar Singh, as he was running the connection illegally and was present at the spot at the time of checking for an amount of Rs.12930/-.This amount has not been deposited till date It is denied that the action of checking the connection on 26.7.2007 and on 30.76.2007 is malafide in nature and intention. If a minor is committing an offence then there is no bare to impose a penalty on him .There is no illegality in issuing the notice to minor. It is denied that the act of issuing notice amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The notices are fully legal and the penalty imposed is fully recoverable. The complainants are still using the motor connection and have not suffered any loss. It is denied that the act of issuing notice amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The notices are fully legal and the penalty imposed is fully recoverable.All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove their case the complainants tendered in evidence affidiavit,Ex.C1 of Tara Singh, complainant, photo copy of agreement,Ex.C2, copy of stay order,Ex.C3, photo copies of bills cum notices,Exs.C4 and C5, photo copy of account copy,Ex.C6, affidavit Exs.CW2 of Parkash Singh, photographs,Exs.C5 to C9 and negatives Exs.C10 to C12.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.R1 of Surat Singh, affidavit,Ex.R2 of Harbhajan Singh,AEE,affidavit,Ex.R3 of S.K.Singla,Xen, attested copy of report No.81 dated 30.7.2007,Ex.R4, attested copy of checking report No.43A dated 26.7.2007,Ex.R5, attested copy of bill cum notice dated 27.7.2007,Ex.R6 and attested copy of bill cum notice dated 30.7.2007,Ex.R7.<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. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant No.1 Tara Singh had inherited one motor connection of 7.5BHP bearing a/c No.SD-6-282 vide a partition effected in the ancestral land of his father vide which the complainant no.1 had received both the land of his share and the motor connection. He has further contended that the opposite parties no.1&2 at the behest of Bhupinder Singh brother of the complainant No.1 visited the motor connection on 27.7.2007 and imposed the penalty of Rs.12930/- on complainant No.2 for illegally running of 10BHP motor and resultantly held liable for theft and the penalty aforementioned .He has contended that a gap of thee days on 30.7.2007the motor connection of complainant No.1 was again checked by opposite party No.2 and again a penalty of Rs.12,930/- for theft of running a 10BHP motor illegally was imposed. He has further contended that the acts of the opposite parties in victimizing the complainant is intentional premeditated planned manner so as to harass them and speaks volumes of their malafide conduct and intention. He has further contended that the act of the opposite parties in issuing the notices to the complainants amounts to deficiency in service since the motor running at the spot is running with a valid connection and is not running illegally. He has further contended that the motor is of 7.5 BHP capacity and not of 10 BHPcapacity. He has further contended that the electricity connection for the motor in question is sanctioned and the motor is not running illegally and as such notices are liable to be declared null and void and the complainants are not under obligation to pay the amount as assessed in the notices.<br /> 8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that complainants are not consumers as defined under the Act. He has further contended that motor connection bearing a/c No.SD-6-288 is running in the land bearing Khasra No.133<br /> (0-5).Khewat /Khatoni No.64/107 in the revenue land of village kheri Mania. He has further contended that the electric connection stands in the name of Bhupinder Singh brother of the complainant with whom the complainant alleges dispute. He has further contended that the connection was checked and penalty of Rs.12930/- vide a bill cum notice dated 27.7.2007, Ex.R6 was imposed. He has further contended that the connection was again checked on 30.7.2007 and again a penalty of Rs.12930/- vide bill cum notice dated 30.7.2007, Ex.R7, was imposed. He has further contended that the connection was checked on 26.7.2007 by Xen (enforcement) vide ECR No.3258 page No.43A, Ex.R5.The checking team found that the connection was in the name of Bhupinder Singh but was being run by Ranjit Singh and it was also found that the connection had been shifted from the original place and was being run at about 50 meters from the original place. It was also found that a 10BHP motor was running on the spot. He has further contended that on enquiry the team also found that no shifting charges as applicable as per the Board rules had been paid. The checking report was signed by Parminder Singh s/o Ranjit Singh. He has further contended that the connection has been shifted by Ranjit Singh without prior permission of the Board and as the shifting charges had not been paid as such this amounted to case of theft and running the connection illegally. He has further contended that a bill cum notice No.27/234 dated 27.7.2007,Ex.R6 for an amount of Rs.12930/-was sent to Parminder Singh s/o Ranjit Singh as he was running the connection illegally and was present at the spot at the time of checking .He has further contended that the connection was again checked by JE I on 30.7.2007 vide checking register No.210 page No.81,Ex.R4.It was found that the bore well where the original connection was installed had been closed and Tara Singh s/o Ranjit Singh was running a 10 BHP submersible motor on a bore well at a distance of about 25 karmas from the original bore well by using pvt.cable.Tara Singh was present at the spot who refused to sign the checking report. The connection was not being run by the original consumer but was being run by Tara Singh,complainant.The connection had been shifted by Tara Singh /Ranjit Singh without prior permission of the board as the shifting charges had not been paid as such this amounted to case of theft and running the connection illegally. This a bill cum notice No.31/234 dated 30.7.2007,Ex.R7, for an amount ofRs.12930/- was sent to Tara Singh, complainant as he was running the connection illegally and was present at the spot at the time of checking .The action of checking the connection 26.7.2007 and on 30.7.2007 is not malafide in nature and intention. He has further contended that issuing notice does not amount to be deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The notices are legal and the penalty imposed is fully recoverable.<br /> 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.<br /> 10. The perusal of the copy of memorandum of partition,Ex.C2, would show that khasra No.113//(0-5) fell to the share of Tara Singh, complainant and Bhupinder Singh and it is further clear from the partition motor connection of 5BHP would be shared equally by Bhupinder Singh and Tara Singh, complainant. So as per memorandum of the partition, Ex.C2, both Tara Singh and Bhupinder Singh are the owners of the motor in equal shares. Therefore, complainants are consumers of the opposite parties as defined under the Act. There was a charge of theft of energy against the complainants. The contention of the opposite parties is that a 10 BHP submersible motor was running at a distance of about 50 karmas from the original bore well. It is also the case of the opposite parties that Tara Singh was present at the spot but refused to sign the checking report. It is also the case of the opposite parties that the connection was not being run by the original consumer but was being run by Tara Singh. It is also the case of the opposite parties that the connection had been shifted by Ranjit Singh/<br /> Tara Singh without prior permission of the <br /> board and without paying the shifting charges. The connection was first checked on 26.7.2007 and then it was checked on 30.7.2007 and on the basis of the checking the impugned notices, Exs.R6 andR7 were issued to the complainants. The perusal of the checking report, Ex.R4, shows that it does not bear the signatures of the complainant or his representative. This very connection was also checked on 26.7.2007 vide checking report ,Ex.R5 by Gurmit Singh,JE.The allegation of the opposite parties is that the connection was in the name of Bhupinder Singh and that Tara Singh and Parminder Singh have no concern or connection with the disputed connection. But as per partition deed, Ex.C2, both Tara Singh, complainant and Bhupinder Singh are the owners in equal shares of the disputed motor connection. Thus, Tara Singh ,complainant and Parminder Singh were not running the motor unauthorizedly.The case of the complainant is that motor in dispute is 7.5 BHP whereas according to the opposite parties the motor found running at the spot was of 10 BHP.Admittedly the motor is submersible. There is no evidence on the record to prove that the raiding party who had allegedly checked the motor on 26.7.2007 and 30.7.2007 had taken out the motor for its verification whether it was of 7.5 BHP or 10 BHP.Er.Surat Singh, DO who filed his affidavit,Ex.R1, Harbhajan Singh,AAE who filed his affidavit,Ex.R2 and Er.Sunil Kumar Sharma, who filed his affidavit,Ex.R3 have not deposed that the motor was taken out for its verification regarding its BHP.That being it must be held that the complainants were not using the motor connection unauthorisedly .Rather Tara Singh complainant is the owner of the disputed motor connection in equal share with Bhupinder Singh.<br /> 11. 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 copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:28.1.2008.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br />