DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.263 of 08-06-2011 Decided on 27-07-2011
Amrik Singh, aged about 57 years, son of Sh. Baishish Singh, Resident of village Maur Kalan, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its C.M.D. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division City Maur, District Bathinda, through its SDO.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Sadhu Ram Bansal, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh. Abhey Singla, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding domestic electricity connection bearing A/c No.B51DR560008F, having sanctioned load of 3 kw installed in his premises. The meter installed at the premises of the complainant is OK and is working properly and the reading of the said meter was 2066 as on 07.06.2011 and the average consumption of the complainant always remained upto 55 units and amount upto Rs.270/- bio monthly. The opposite parties issued a provisional order of assessment u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 vide notice No.1054 dated 18.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.20,253/- which was dispatched on 26.05.2011 to the complainant on the basis that the connection No.DR56-008 was checked on 14.05.2011 by the checking authority in which, they mentioned that a joint had been set up in the wire directly towards the load side by making joint near the stair case. The complainant has challenged the said notice on various grounds that no such checking was ever conducted by the officials of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited at the house of the complainant in the presence of the complainant or any of his representative. There is no signature of the complainant or any of his representative on the said checking report. The said checking report has been manipulated by the opposite parties to extort money from the complainant; the said notice dated 18.05.2011 shows that the said demand has been raised against one Amrik Singh S/o Babu Singh but the said notice has been issued to the complainant by mentioning his account number although the name of father of the complainant is Bakshish Singh and not Babu Singh; most of the time, the complainant and his family remains in the fields as they are agriculturist and the average consumption of the complainant remained upto 55 units and amount upto Rs.270/- bio monthly; there is no such joint in the main service wire as mentioned in the checking report and notice rather the said meter is still running. No such joint was ever reported by the opposite parties. The bills are also being issued on the basis of meter reading which shows that the meter is regularly running and the said connection is ok; the opposite parties have not afforded any opportunity of being heard to the complainant before issuing the said notice; no basis or criteria has been mentioned to calculate the said demand of Rs.20,253/-. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to withdraw the said demand but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to withdraw the said demand of Rs.20,253/- and to pay cost and compensation. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and admitted that the meter status of the said connection is OK and is working properly and admitted that a provisional order of assessment u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 vide memo No.1054 dated 18.05.2011 for Rs.25,310/- and Rs.9,000/- as compounding charges was sent to the complainant by post. The opposite parties have denied that the said notice dated 18.05.2011 was dispatched on 26.05.2011. On 14.05.2011, Er. Ashok Kumar Singla, SDO, City Maur, Er. Gursewak Singh, JE alongwith S. Gurcharan Singh and S. Baldev Singh, ALM checked the electric connection bearing No.DR 56/0008F in the presence of S. Gurbinder Singh, representative of the complainant. On checking, it was found that the complainant had made a joint on the back side of the meter, near the stairs and a direct wire from the said joint was directly connected in the main switch on load side. The electricity supply was in running condition but the meter was in stopped condition. A direction was also issued to install the electronic meter outside in caged MCB, vide checking report No.22/4 dated 14.05.2011. All the persons of checking squad signed the checking report in the presence of Gurbinder Singh. Sh. Gurbinder Singh was also asked to sign the said checking report in token of its correctness who refused to sign the checking report. An endorsement in this regard was also made on the checking report. On the basis of said checking report, the opposite party No.2 issued a provisional order of assessment u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.20,253/- and Rs.9,000/- as compounding charges to the complainant. The opposite parties have further pleaded that due to clerical mistake, the name of father of the complainant was wrongly written as Babu Singh in place of Bakhshish Singh. The complainant was given an opportunity to file objections against the said notice but he did not file the objections with S.E., DS, Bathinda. 3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 5. The opposite parties issued a provisional order of assessment u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 vide notice No.1054 dated 18.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.20,253/- dispatched on 26.05.2011 to the complainant on the basis that the connection No.DR56-008 was checked on 14.05.2011 by the checking authority. They have found that a joint had been set up in the wire directly towards the load side by making joint near the stair case. The complainant has alleged that no such checking was ever conducted by the officials of the opposite parties in his presence or any of his representative. The checking report has not signed by the complainant. The notice dated 18.05.2011 clearly shows that the said demand has been raised against one Amrik Singh S/o Babu Singh but the said notice has been issued to the complainant by mentioning his account number and the name of father of the complainant is Bakshish Singh and is not Babu Singh. Most of the time, the complainant and his family remained in the fields as they are agriculturist and the average consumption of the complainant remained upto 55 units. The status of the meter shown as OK and the bills so issued are on reading basis. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that on 14.05.2011, Er. Ashok Kumar Singla, SDO, City Maur, Er. Gursewak Singh, J.E. alongwith Gurcharan Singh and Baldev Singh, ALM checked the electric connection bearing No.DR 56/0008F in the presence of Gurbinder Singh, representative of the complainant. On checking, it was found that the complainant had made a joint on the back side of the meter near the stairs and a direct wire from the said joint was directly connected in the main switch on load side. The electricity supply was in running condition but the meter was stopped. A direction was also issued to install the electronic meter outside caged in MCB, vide checking report No.22/4 dated 14.05.2011. All the persons of checking squad present at the spot, signed the checking report in the presence of Gurbinder Singh but the said Gurbinder Singh refused to sign the checking report. An endorsement in this regard was also made on the checking report. On the basis of the said checking report, a provisional order of assessment u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.20,253/- and Rs.9,000/- as compounding charges has been issued to the complainant. The opposite parties have further submitted that due to clerical mistake, the name of father of the complainant was wrongly written as Babu Singh in place of Bakhshish Singh. The complainant was given an opportunity to file objections against the abovesaid memo but he failed to file the objection. 7. A perusal of bills placed on file shows that the complainant is holding DS connection and has been regularly getting the bills which he is paying regularly. A few bills are issued on MMC basis. Even the bills which are issued on MMC basis, the status of the meter shown as ’O’ which means, the meter was OK. 8. The opposite parties have not produced any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the complainant has been using the electricity by making a joint on the back side of the meter near the stairs and a direct wire from the said joint was directly connected in the main switch on load side. No photography and videography has been done on the spot. No wire through which the meter has been directly connected, is produced before this Forum. The opposite parties have also failed to prove that who was the person-Gurbinder Singh who was present at the spot and refused to sign the checking report. No relation of this person with Amrik Singh has been mentioned. If, it was a case of theft of electricity, according to their own rules and regulations, the connection of the complainant should have immediately be disconnected and the meter be removed and an FIR be also lodged against the complainant. 9. Under Section-VII, unauthorized use/theft of electricity, clause 101.2 (c) clearly provides that:- “Consequences of theft of electricity: In case theft of electricity by a consumer/person is prima facie established, then the supply to such premises will be immediately disconnected or any other officer of the PSPCL of the rank higher than the rank of an officer so authorized by the Commission. Complaint in writing shall be lodged with the police (Spl. Police Station) within 24 hours of the disconnection for intimating criminal proceeding in Spl. Court.....” 10. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, the opposite parties have failed to establish the case of theft of electricity against the complainant. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation and the demand raised through memo No.1054 dated 18.05.2011 for a sum of Rs.20,253/- is hereby quashed. The complainant has already deposited Rs.7,000/- with the order of this Forum for seeking stay, the opposite parties are directed to adjust the amount of Rs,7,000/- in future bills of the complainant. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ’ Pronounced 27.07.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
