DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.22 of 13-01-2012
Decided on 23-07-2013
Gagandeep Singh aged about 22 years S/o Mohinder Singh R/o St.No.10125, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall Patiala, through its Chairman/Secretary.
2.S.D.O/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Cantt Sub Division Bathinda.
.......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.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.J.P.S Brar, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding the domestic electric connection bearing No.B11BN442741F and is paying the bills so issued by the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and nothing is due against him. The opposite parties disconnected the electricity connection of the complainant on 12.1.2012 and removed the meter forcibly without giving any notice. The complainant protested the same but the opposite parties did not listen or gave any notice about removal of the meter. The meter is installed in the street and was removed by Sh.Raj Kumar J.E. The complainant approached the office of the opposite party No.2 and inquired the matter why the meter has been removed and showed all the previous bills paid by him but the opposite parties did not give any response to him and even they did not disclose the reason of removal of the meter. The complainant is still ready to make the payment of the bill if any due against him. The complainant requested the opposite parties to do the needful but they paid no heed to his requests. Hence the present complaint.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this forum as such he is not entitled to any relief. The true facts are that earlier on 20.1.2011, a checking was conducted by Er.Ranjeet Singh, Sr.XEN, Enforcement-II, Bathinda with the assistance of Sh.Vijay Gupta, J.E Cantt Sub Division, Bathinda in the premises of Mohinder Singh (father of the complainant i.e. the premises regarding which present dispute is pending before this forum) in the presence of Mohinder Singh and during checking it was found that there is no electricity meter/connection in the premises of Mohinder Singh and construction work is going on and Mohinder Singh was found abstracting electricity by making a joint from the main service line and using load of 3.191 KW and the checking staff held it to be the case of theft of electricity. Accordingly, a detailed checking report was prepared at the site and a rough site plan/sketch was drawn on the checking report itself showing the manner of theft committed by Mohinder Singh. At the spot, 35 meter cable/wire PVC black was taken into the possession, which was handed over to Sh.Vijay Kumar J.E. Mohinder Singh voluntarily put his signatures on the checking report regarding his presence and in token of checking conducted by the checking staff. Thereafter a copy of the checking report was also supplied to Mohinder Singh at the spot. On the basis of the checking report, memo No.153 dated 21.1.2011 under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003, raising a demand of Rs.2,21,910/- was served to Mohinder Singh on account of theft of electricity and further advised him to deposit an amount of Rs.9000/- for compounding the offence of theft and it was also advised that if Mohinder Singh has any objection qua the said demand, he may file objections before the designated authority but he has not filed any objections and rather has filed application before the Hon'ble Permanent Lok Adalat, Bathinda for the settlement of dispute. The Hon'ble Permanent Lok Adalat while considering the submissions of both the parties, vide order dated 10.6.2011 passed in application No.159/2011 directed the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. to recalculate the amount for 8 months instead of 12 months and directed Mohinder Singh to deposit the fresh demand raised by the Board. Accordingly, in compliance of the order dated 10.6.2011 the opposite parties raised the fresh demand vide memo No.1560 dated 23.8.2011 for Rs.1,47,942/- and Rs.9000/- respectively but Mohinder Singh has not deposited the demanded amount and has challenged the order dated 10.6.2011 by way of writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which is pending for disposal. During the pendency of said dispute, Mohinder Singh by concealing all the facts has succeeded in getting the electricity connection in question in the name of his son Gagandeep Singh in the very premises regarding which demand is still pending. As and when the abovesaid facts came to the notice of the opposite parties, they have disconnected the electricity connection in question as per rules and regulations of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Since the father of the complainant was found indulging in theft of electricity in the same very premises and both the complainant as well his father were well aware of the reason of disconnection of the electricity connection, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
3. Record placed on file perused.
4. The opposite parties in their written statement in para No.3 of the legal objection has specifically mentioned that memo No.153 dated 21.1.2011 under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003, for a demand of Rs.2,21,910/- was served upon Mohinder Singh on account of theft of electricity and Rs.9000/- compounding the offence of theft of electricity on the basis of checking conducted by Er.Ranjeet Singh, Sr.XEN, Enforcement-II, Bathinda with the assistance of Sh.Vijay Gupta, J.E Cantt Sub Division, Bathinda. The said memo was challenged by Mohinder Singh before the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Bathinda. The learned Permanent Lok Adalat vide order dated 10.6.2011 passed in application No.159/2011 directed the opposite parties to recalculate the amount for 8 months instead of 12 months and directed Mohinder Singh to deposit the fresh demand. Accordingly, the opposite parties raised the fresh demand vide memo No.1560 dated 23.8.2011 for Rs.1,47,942/- and Rs.9000/- respectively, but Mohinder Singh has not deposited the demanded amount and has challenged the order dated 10.6.2011 by way of writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which is pending for disposal. During the pendency of said dispute, Mohinder Singh by concealing all the facts has succeeded in getting the electricity connection in question in the name of his son Gagandeep Singh in the very premises regarding which the demand is still pending.
5. As the case in hand is regarding the theft of electricity and memo is issued under section 135 of Electricity Act 2003 as such this complaint is not maintainable before this forum. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 (arising out of SLP (C) No.35906 of 2011) in case titled U.P Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad reported in III (2013) CPJ 1 (SC) in para No.32 and 47 it has been held:-
“32) For proper appreciation, we refer to Section 135 which relates to “theft of electricity". Interference with meters or work of licensee, taping of electricity, making or causing to be made any connection with overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service wires, or service facilities of a licensee; tampering of meter, installation or use of tampered meter, loop connection or any other device or method which interferes with accurate or proper registration, calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; damaging or destroys of an electrical meter, apparatus, equipment, use of electricity through a tampered meter; use of electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized constitute "theft of electricity" and constitute “offence" under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.....
“47) In view of the observation made above, we hold that:
(i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint”as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(ii) A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum.”
In the light of above settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court this complaint is not maintainable before this forum, hence hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The merits of the case are not touched. Before parting with this order it is made clear that the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court/authority for the redressal of his grievances if so advised and permitted by law.
6. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in the open Forum
23-07-2013
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
