District Consumer Redressal Forum District Consumer Redressal Forum,Old CMO Building,Baradari,Opposite Nihal Bagh consumer case(CC) No. 169/07
TILAK RAJ
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
PSEB
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Inderjit Singh 2. Smt. Parmjit Kaur
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PATIALA. Complaint No. 169 of 7.5.2007 Decided on: 25.2.2008 Tilak Raj aged about 46 years son of Sh.Choudhary Ram, R/o House No.F-6/1, Near Patel Colony, Rajpura District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary. 2. S.D.O.West Sub-Division Punjab State Electricity Board,Rajpura,District Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Smt.Paramjit Kaur,Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.B.M.Singh,adv. For opposite parties: Sh.Pawan Puri,adv. ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT Complainant,Tilak Raj has 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. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this; That the complainant is consumer of the Punjab State Electricity Board, having electricity connection bearing a/c No.GF-23/953 NRS, which is in the name of Sh.Gulzar Singh son of Sh.Jaswant Singh and installed at the premises of the rental shop Bedi Dhaba, situated at village Dhamoli, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.The owner of the said shop is Sh.Gulzar Singh son of Sh.Jaswant Singh and the complainant is the tenant of the said shop for the last 7 years. The complainant is using the supply of the electricity against this account number to run his Dhaba and is paying the charges for the consumption of energy on the said connection regularly being beneficiary and nothing is pending against him. The sanctioned connected load is only 2.88KW.The supply is being given through rural feeder only for 6 hours during paddy season. That the complainant is an unemployed person and in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment, he runs the dhaba with the help of only one worker. The complainant has no other source of income. That on 28.4.2007,two employees of the opposite parties namely Sh.Dev Raj-J.E. and one ALM visited the premises of the complainant and checked the electricity meter, which was functioning properly. After checking the meter, they stated that it seems that the electricity meter is defective one and is not giving correct reading. They demanded a sum of Rs.5000/-as illegal gratification and threatened that in case the said amount is not given, they will falsely implicate him in a false case of theft of energy. The complainant respectfully told them that he is a law abiding citizen and never indulge himself in stealing the electricity and as such he refused to pay any illegal gratification. Thereafter the above stated employees of the opposite parties removed the electricity meter and took it with them openly without packing the same in any box whatsoever. The meter was neither packed nor sealed in any box at the spot and no signatures of the complainant or his representative were obtained on any seals. That a new electronic meter in place of old one ( which was removed on 28.4.2007)was installed at the premises of the complainant on 29.4.2007.That no intimation was sent by the opposite parties regarding the testing of the old meter in M.E.Lab. No meter was checked in the M.E.Lab, which was removed from the premises of the complainant in the presence of the complainant. No copy of the checking report of M.E.Lab has been supplied to the complainant by the opposite parties. That the complainant was surprised when he received a demand notice bearing No.1435/38 dated 3.5.2007 on 4.5.2007 stating therein that the connection of the complainant was checked on 28.4.2007 by the J.E. and the theft case of electricity was noticed and on account of this a sum of Rs.25,965/- be deposited within a period of 7 days of the issue of the notice to avoid further action. That although the demand notice was issued by the opposite parties on 3.5.2007 which was received by the complainant on 4.5.2007 meaning thereby that the amount of Rs.25,965/-is required to be paid by 10.5.2007 on account of alleged theft of energy, yet without waiting for the due date of payment i.e. 10.5.2007, the opposite parties illegally with ulterior motive and malafide intention disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant on 5.5.2007 around 10:00AM/That the complainant has been mentally harassed and tortured by the opposite parties. The complainant is suffering a loss due to non availability of electricity. The electricity is an essential commodity and the deprivation of the same by the opposite parties caused huge loss, which even cannot be compensated in terms of damages. That the demand of Rs.25,965/- raised by the opposite parties in the demand notice No.1435/38 dated 3.5.2007 is illegal, ultravires, malafide, without jurisdiction and is liable to be ignored and quashed on the grounds:- i) That the alleged checking dated 28.4.2007 by the J.E. has never been taken place and this allegation of theft of energy has been imposed upon the complainant as he refused to oblige the employees of the opposite parties by paying illegal gratification of Rs.5000/- as demanded by them. ii) That no checking report has been prepared on the spot nor the same was got signed either of the complainant or any of his representative. No checking report was delivered to the complainant for the alleged checking and even the so called checking report was not supplied with the demand notice. iii) That the old meter removed from the premises of the complainant was neither packed nor sealed in any box at the spot, nor the signatures of the complainant were obtained on any seals. Further no intimation through any notice has been given to state that the meter should be checked on a particular date and time in the M.E.Lab so as to enable the complainant to present himself in the M.E.Lab at the time of checking. iv) That no meter has been checked in the M.E.Lab, which was removed from the premises of the complainant nor any copy of the checking report of M.E.Lab has been delivered to the complainant. v) That although the due date for payment of the amount raised by the opposite parties vide notice dated 3.5.2007 was 10.5.2007 yet the connection of the complainant was disconnected on 5.5.2007 i.e. much before the due date of payment of the penalty on account of alleged theft of energy depriving the complainant from availing the use of electricity, which is essential commodity and derivation of the same caused huge loss to the complainant. That the action and order of the opposite parties being illegal and without jurisdiction is deficiency in service and they are liable to pay damages and compensation for the same amounting to Rs.20,000/-under this Act. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. The complainant is not a registered consumer of the board of the connection in dispute. The connection in dispute is in the name of S.Gulzar Singh. The connection is being used for commercial purposes and otherwise also does not come within the definition of consumer as defined under the Act. So the complainant has no locus standai to file the present complaint. Any relationship of landlord and tenant between the complainant and the said Gulzar Singh has no legal significance as no information was ever given by the complainant or its owner to the Board that the connection is being used by the complainant. Even if the said fact is assumed to be correct then it is a case of misuse of electricity as no consumer can allow any other person to use the electricity without the consent of the Board, It is denied that the complainant is an unemployed person or to earn his livelihood is running the business of hotel cum restaurant, which has been alleged by the complainant as dhaba.The complainant is running the business of hotel cum restaurant with the aid of several workers as employees and is earning huge profits from the said business. It is denied that the complainant is doing the said business for self employment. The complainant has tried to misrepresent the facts. On the one hand, the complainant is alleging that he is unemployed and on the other alleging that he is running the business for self-employment. The allegations are self contradictory. No one person can be employee of either the Govt.Institution or Private Institution, who is himself running the huge business of hotel cum restaurant on the bye pass of Patkala-Rajpura road, which is the most passengers and traffic road of the area ad is adjoining to the Rajpura Town. The connection of the complainant was checked by the checking officer of the Board on 28.4.2007 and it was reported by the checking officer that the complainant is committing the theft of electricity energy. The method and manner of commission of theft by the complainant has been fully described and stated by the checking officer in his report dated 28.4.2007, when he had checked the connection of the complainant. The meter of the complainant was removed from the site immediately after detecting the case of theft of energy by the checking officer. The removed meter was duly packed in a card box by the checking officer and the card board box containing the meter was duly paper sealed vide seal No.11225.The supply was connected directly by the checking officer of the consumer. The seals of the meter were also found tempered. The seals were found temered,broken (both seals) and the same were found joined with foreign compound by the consumer as was detected by the checking officer at the site of the consumer. The checking was conducted by the checking officer in the presence of consumer, who had countersigned the checking report in token of its correctness. The checking officer i.e. Jr.Engineer was duly assisted by Assistant Lineman at the time of checking, who had also signed the checking report. It is a case of theft of electricity energy, which comes within the purview of malpractice as defined under the Electricity Act,2003.It is absolutely false that any illegal gratification of Rs.5000/- was demanded by the concerned checking officer. The complainant has concocted the false allegations to file the present complaint. It is absolutely false that the meter which was found tempered as fully explained in the checking report by the checking officer was not packed in a card board box after the removal of the same. In fact, the same was duly packed by the checking officer in the presence of consumer who had countersigned the same in token of its correctness. It is denied that the complainant had not signed the checking report. The checking officer had removed the meter on the same date and time i.e. after the checking of the connection on 28.4.2007 and had allowed the consumer to avail the direct supply till the new meter is installed. The new meter was installed vide 16/6803 dated 30.4.2007.The complainant has immediately filed the complaint on 7.5.2007 i.e. on receipt of the notice under section 126 of the Electricity act vide which provisional assessment was made by the concerned office of the Board and the consumer was directed to file the objections within 7 days from the receipt of the said orders or deposit the amount in dispute. However, the complainant has failed to comply with the said notice. The Electricity Act, itself empowers the Board to disconnect the connection of a consumer on detection of theft of electricity energy. The issuance of notice is merely to inform the consumer that he is required to deposit the amount within 7 days from the date of issuance of notice to avoid any further action or to file the objections in respect of the demand as has been raised by the Board. Under the Act (Electricity Act,2003) , the consumers of the Board are liable for civil and criminal liability in case of theft of energy or commission of malpractice is detected against a consumer of Board. So the notice was issued in compliance of statutory provisions of the Act. The complainant is not suffering from any loss. The demand as has been raised by the Board is absolutely legal. The demand has been raised as per rules under the signatures of competent authority. There is no deficiency in service. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied. The pleas that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint and that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2 of the Act have also been taken and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.C1, affidavit of Charanjit Singh,Ex.C2 and demand notice,Ex.C3. 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.R1 of Ashok Bansal,SDO, affidavit,Ex.R2 of Er.Dev Raj,J.E., affidavit,Ex.R3 of Santosh Kumar,ALM, copy of checking report dated 28.4.2007,Ex.R4, copy of notice dated 30.4.2007,Ex.R5 and copy of checking report dated 25.7.2006,Ex.R6. 6. The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the complainant is not a consumer of the Board. She has further contended that the connection in dispute is in the name of Gulzar Singh Bedi which is being used for hotel cum restaurant. The complainant has no concern with the connection in dispute and that the complainant has no locus standai to file the complaint on behalf of the consumer. She has further contended that the connection of the complainant is a commercial connection. The complainant is using the same for commercial purposes. The complainant is earning the profits from the business which is being run with the said connection i.e. of hotel and restaurant. The complainant has employed several workers. 8. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having electricity connection bearing a/c No.GF-23/953 NRS which is in the name of Gulzar Singh s/o Jaswant Singh and installed at the premises of the rental shop Bedi Dhaba situated at village Dhamoli Tehsil Rajpura,Disitrict Patiala.He has further contended that the owner of the said Dhaba is Gulzar Singh and the complainant is a tenant in the said shop for the last 7 years. The complainant is using the supply of the electricity against this account number to run his dhaba and is paying the charges for the consumption of energy on the said connection regularly being beneficiary and nothing is pending against him. The sanctioned load is only 2.88KW.It is also contended that the complainant is an unemployed person and in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment runs the dhaba with the help of only one worker. The complainant has no other source of income. 9. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Er.Ashok Bansal,SDO has deposed in his affidavit,Ex.R1, that the complainant is using the electricity for commercial purposes i.e. for hotel cum restaurant .The complainant is earning huge profit from the said business. The complainant does not come within the definition of consumer as defined under the Act. 11. The perusal of the checking report,Ex.R4 and the notice,Ex.R5, also prove that the connection is in the name of Gulzar Singh s/o Jaswant Singh Bedi dhaba bye pass Rajpura.It is well established that the parties who hire services from agency like the Electricity Board happen to be business/commercial entity as per recent amendment introduced under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The same are excluded from the definition of consumer. On this point we are supported by the authority Parmod Luxman Zinje Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Others 2004(IV) CPJ 490. In the present complaint the complainant is using connection for commercial purposes i.e. to run a dhaba and is earning profits from the said business. 12. In view of the above discussion we hold that the complainant is using the connection of electricity energy for commercial purposes. The demand raised by the opposite parties in this case would not be deficiency of service. Therefore, we have no option but to dismiss the complaint being without any merit. The complaint is dismissed accordingly. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:25.2.008. President Member
