DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC /10/459 of 15.6.2010 Decided on: 23.11.2010 Gurmail Singh S/o Gurdev Singh, R/o Village Mardanheri, Tehsil & District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Electricity Board (Now Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.), through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala. 2. Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, Balbera, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., District Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.A.S.Chahal, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj,Advocate. ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Gurmail Singh 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’s father namely Sh.Gurdev Singh, who has since died, was the consumer of the Board and after his death, the complainant has become consumer of the opposite parties being beneficiary and there is a domestic electric connection bearing account no.P44MH250141Y running in the name of late Sh.Gurdev Singh under the office of opposite party no.2. That the opposite parties have issued order of assessment vide bill No.38 dated 27.5.2010 regarding above stated account number and an amount of Rs.9095/- has been assessed. That the order of assessment has been issued without any basis. No such report of checking has been attached with the order of assessment and no checking has been conducted by any of the official of the Board/opposite parties prior to issuing the bill. That false allegations have been leveled against the complainant in the above order of assessment. That no site report has been handed over to the complainant. The signature of the complainant has not been obtained on any such site report before issuing the said bill. That the meter has been recording normal consumption and there is no variation in consumption recorded by the meter and the complainant has been paying normal bills on the basis of consumption recorded by the meter. That the opposite party no.2 has not given the complainant any information regarding the basis of calculation of the assessment, despite repeated requests made by the complainant in this regard. The amount has been assessed illegally and arbitrarily and against the provisions of regulations. That demand of Rs.9095/- has been raised against the complainant illegally and arbitrary and without any basis throughout. That the demand raised by the opposite parties is illegal, arbitrary , null and void, ultravirse, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, against the principals of natural justice and against and contrary to the express provisions of the departmental rules, regulations and instructions. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that an electricity connection bearing account No.MH250141Y is installed in the premises in the name of Sh.Gurdev Singh. That the electricity connection was checked by the authorized and competent P.S.E.B.checking team consisting of Sh.Roshan Lal-JE-2 P.S.E.B. Balbera and others vide checking report No.13/812 dated 25.7.2009 and it was found during its checking that whNo pkJhgk; eoe/ fpibh uoh eo fojk ;h. fpibh uoh dk e/; j?” which amounts to theft of energy by illegal means by the complainant and he is liable to pay for the same as per rules. That the above stated checking of above stated electricity connection though was carried out in the presence of the complainant, but the complainant refused to sign on the checking report and necessary endorsement to this effect has also been made by the P.S.E.B. checking team in the above stated checking report. That a copy of the checking report was also supplied to the complainant at the time of its checking and necessary endorsement has also been made in the checking report. That based on the above stated checking report a legal demand memo no.1264 dated 3.8.2009 amounting to Rs.9107/- was made upon the complainant and it was also advised to the complainant that he may pay Rs.5820 /- as compounding fee charges in his own interest to avoid any police action in the matter since complainant was found to be indulging in theft of energy by illegal means and the matter has been reported vide memo No.1265 dated 3.8.2009 to Inspector Anti Power Theft Police Station,P.S.E.B.,Patiala to lodge necessary FIR in the case. That since Sh.Gurdev Singh son of Sampuran Singh who has been reported by the complainant to having died accordingly necessary amendment to memo No.1265 dated 3.8.2009 addressed to Incharge,Anti Power Theft Police Station is being issued to change the name of complainant in place of Sh.Gurdev Singh since the complainant was the consumer at the time of its checking and Sh.Gurdev Singh has since died which fact was not known to the opposite parties nor it was intimated by the complainant to the opposite parties hence necessitating necessary amendment in above stated memo no.1265 dated 3.8.2009 addressed to Anti Power Theft Police Station, Patiala for lording DDR/FIR since the complainant was found to be including in theft of energy by illegal means. The complainant is liable to pay the legal demand amount since the same has been leveled as per rules and there is no illegality in it. The action on the part of the opposite parties in this case has been legal, bonafide,transparent and the legal demand made vide memo no.1265 dated 3.8.2009 is as per laid down rules and regulations and there is no illegality in it and the complainant is liable to pay the same since there has been no deficiency. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The whole case of the opposite parties is dependant upon the alleged checking report dated 25.7.2009, Ex.R3 and on the affidavits, Ex.R1 of Er.P.S.Bansal,AEE and R2 of Sh.Roshan Lal,JE II.A perusal of the checking report, Ex.R3 indicates that it does not include signatures of either the complainant or his representative. The report has also not been authenticated by any respectable person of the locality to confirm its veracity. Further more there is no evidence of a copy of this report having been given to the complainant. Under these circumstances the checking report in its present shape is against the rules and regulations of the opposite parties and it therefore, cannot be relied upon. On this point we are supported by the authority Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot Vs. Sarwan Singh 2008(1) CLT 237. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion we are clearly of the view that the opposite parties have failed to establish their case of theft of electricity on the part of the complainant. We are also of the clear view that the opposite parties have unnecessarily drawn the complainant into prolonged litigation. 8. 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. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:23.11.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
