consumer forum mansa consumer forum mansa consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/205
Varinder Kumar
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
PSEB
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Neena Rani Gupta 2. Sh Sarat Chander
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.205/01.12.2008 Decided on : 24.04.2009 Sh.Varinder Kumar S/o Sh. Tej Ram S/o Sh.Nohar Chand, Lal M.C. Wali Gali, Ward No.15, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, City, Sub Division, Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh. S.K.Singla, Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Sh.V.K.Singla, Advocate counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member Sh.Varinder Kumar (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Punjab State Electricity Board through its Sub Divisional Officer (hereinafter called as opposite Party) for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to set aside letter No. 2997 dated 30.10.2008 and also pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- regarding mental tension and costs in the sum of Rs.1000/-. Brief facts of this complaint are that the complainant had obtained electric connection bearing Account No.ST39/433 for domestic purposes in his house and he had been paying the electric consumption charges from time to time, as such, he is the consumer of the opposite party. The complainant has never used the electric connection for the Contd........2 : 2 : purpose of construction and he has raised construction of his house long ago, but the opposite party has served notice, vide letter No. 2997 dated 30.10.2008, upon him raising demand of Rs.6984/-, on the ground that he was caught using electric energy for the purpose of construction. The complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment due to service of illegal notice upon him, as such, opposite party was stated to be deficient in service. Hence this complaint. The OP in their written version have taken certain legal objections and challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and is bound to make the payment of amount mentioned in the memo. On merits the factum of issuance of electric connection is not denied It was denied that the demand was in any way illegal and the OP was deficient in service towards the complainant, as he was caught using electric energy for raising construction of house where he has installed his electric connection for domestic purpose. All other allegations were denied and 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 demand has been raised through the impugned notice on the allegation of raising of construction, but there is no proof of raising of construction of any structure in his premises by the complainant. Learned counsel further argued that OP has not urged that complainant was tampering with the electric meter in the course of raising of construction, as such, impugned notice is liable to be set aside and complainant is entitled to seek compensation and costs from the opposite party as prayed for in the instant complaint. Contd........3 : 3 : On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has submitted that checking of the premises of the complainant was done in his presence and he has admitted the contents of the checking report without protest and said fact is also proved by the affidavit of Sh.Ajaib Singh, SDO. Learned counsel further argued that use of electric energy from the domestic connection for construction purpose by the consumer is not permissible, as such, the complainant is bound to make the payment of impugned memo and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and no indulgence of this Forum is required as sought by the complainant. Admittedly, complainant has got installed electric connection in question for domestic purposes. He has not denied his signatures affixed on the checking Report Ext.C-3 nor it is his case that they have been secured by the officials of the board on some other pretext on blank papers. He has admitted the contents of the checking report without lodging any protest. However, the perusal of the checking report reveals that as per note appended thereon, complainant got enhanced the load of his electric meter on the date of checking itself i.e. on 23.10.2008. The opposite party has also not taken any plea that complainant was caught drawing electric energy more than his sanctioned load. There is no allegation in the checking report that complainant was committing theft of electric energy. The only allegation of the opposite party is that he was found using electric energy for raising construction, but there is no evidence to corroborate the factum of construction of any structure raised by the complainant in his premises, except the affidavit Ext.OP-1 of Sh.Ajaib Singh, SDO of the board. In the written version, it has been submitted that checking was done by Sh.R.K.Goyal, XEN Enforcement, but the name of Sh.Ajaib Singh is not found incorporated there, as member of the checking team. Moreover, affidavit Ext.OP-1 was initially executed in the name of Sh.Ashok Kumar, but his name is found deleted and substituted by the name of Sh.Ajaib Singh. The said correction does Contd........4 : 4 : not bear the signatures of the deponent. As such, no reliance can be placed on the said document in view of the facts stated above. Learned counsel for the opposite party has not pointed out any provision under which a consumer is debarred from using electric energy through the electric meter for the purpose other than the purpose for which he has secured the same. We are of the opinion that use of electric energy through the electric meter is no violation of rules because a consumer has to make payment of electricity charges on the basis of reading shown by his electric meter. As such, we are of the considered opinion that notice served upon the complainant by the opposite party raising demand of Rs.6984/- 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. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and we set aside the impugned notice, Ext.C-2, served upon the complainant, vide letter No.2997 dated 30.10.2008 raising demand of Rs.6984/-, and burden the opposite party, in the sum of Rs.2,000/-, on account of compensation, and costs in the sum of Rs.1,000/- with further direction to refund the amount of Rs.3000/-, if paid, in terms of the interim order dated 1.12.2008, with interest ,at the rate of 9 percent, from the date of deposit, till the 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 this order be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced 24.04.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
