DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.388 of 04-08-2011 Decided on 20-10-2011
Harbans Singh, aged about 45 years S/o Sh. Hakam Singh, Resident of near Bus Stand of village Jalal, District Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman. A.E.E./S.D.O., PSEB, Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil & Distt. Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Deepak Sehgal, counsel for the complainant For Opposite parties: Sh. R.D.Goyal, 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 electric connection bearing account No.B92JF 720447P and has been paying the bills regularly and nothing is due against him. The complainant received a bill dated 19.07.2011 for Rs.39,600/- in which Rs.36,643/- are shown as sundry charges. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party No.2 to inquire about the same. He alleged that neither any explanation was given before charging the above said amount nor any objections were demanded nor any notice was ever issued in this regard to the complainant rather the opposite parties threatened him that if the amount of bill is not paid, his connection will be disconnected. The complainant has further alleged that no checking of the meter was ever done in his presence or any of his representative. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to quash the impugned bill alongwith cost and compensation. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant is not paying the bills regularly, he is defaulter in paying the amount of bill. The connection of the complainant was checked on 16.04.2009 by Sh. Ranjit Singh, AEE Enforcement, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Batihnda with the help of Er. M.S. Sidhu, A.A.E. Enforcement and they found that the complainant was using the electricity after lying wire from the main service line which was coming to the meter directly to the outgoing wiring from which he was using the electricity. He was using the electricity directly without any permission of the opposite parties and was committing theft of electricity. The photographs were also taken at the spot. The said checking were made in the presence of Hakam Singh who refused to sign the checking report after receiving the copy of the same. On the basis of said checking, a memo No.895 dated 24.04.2009 was issued to the complainant for recovering the amount of Rs.40,286/- but after adjusting the amount of the bill, which was paid by the complainant and claiming the increase rate, Rs.36,643/- was standing due against the complainant which was claimed in bill dated 19.07.2011. The complainant did not comply with the provisional assessment orders dated 24.04.2009 and did not file any objections, so the complainant is bound to pay the same to the opposite parties. The opposite parties have further pleaded that they have full right to disconnect the connection of the complainant if he do not deposit that amount. 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 complainant has submitted that he has been paying the bills regularly. He received a bill dated 19.07.2011 whereby, a demand of Rs.39,600/- in which Rs.36,643/- is shown as sundry charges. Before this, no notice has been issued to the complainant. The Sundry Charges mentioned in bill dated 19.07.2011 have been incorporated without quoting any reason. The complainant has challenged this bill on various grounds that the checking has not been done in his presence or any of his representative. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that the connection of the complainant was checked on 16.04.2009 by Sh. Ranjit Singh, AEE Enforcement, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Bathinda with the help of Er. M.S. Sidhu, A.A.E. Enforcement and during checking, they found that the complainant was using the electricity after lying wire from the main service line which was coming to the meter directly to the outgoing wiring from which he was using the electricity. The complainant was using the electricity directly without any permission of the opposite parties and he was committing theft of electricity. The opposite parties have specifically mentioned that the photographs were taken on the spot. This checking was made in the presence of Hakam Singh who refused to sign the checking report after receiving the copy of the same. This was routine checking and on the basis of said checking, a provisional assessment order No.895 dated 24.04.2009 was issued to the complainant for recovering the amount of Rs.40,286/- but after adjusting the amount of the bill and claiming the increase rate, Rs.36,643/- was standing due against him which was claimed in bill dated 19.07.2011. As the complainant did not comply with the provisional assessment order dated 24.04.2009 and failed to file any objections against this notice, so it is persumed that the complainant had admitted the accuracy of their demand. The opposite parties have full right to disconnect the connection of the complainant if he do not deposit that amount. 7. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the checking has been done on the same day i.e. on 16.04.2009 vide Ex.R-2. The sanctioned load is shown in account No.JF-72/0447 as 1.76 kw. A further perusal of this checking report shows that both the ME seals of the meter are broken and the load was according to sanctioned load. The photographs are clicked on the spot and Sh Hakam Singh present on the spot, had refused to sign the checking report. 8. The complainant had argued that he had been issued provisional assessment orders u/s 126 of the Electricity Act. The opposite parties themselves admitted in their reply that they have not issued Final Assessment Order as they found that the complainant had not filed any objections, admitting his fault whereas it is mandatory to send the final order of assessment. Moreover, the meter of the complainant has not been checked in his presence. The opposite parties have mentioned in the checking report that the seals of the meters were tampered and the complainant has been using the electricity after lying the wire from the main service line which was coming to the meter directly from outgoing wiring from which the complainant was using electricity. The complainant was using the electricity directly without any permission of the opposite parties and in this way, he was committing theft of electricity. 9. Moreover, neither any wire has been produced in the found condition by the opposite parties nor there are signatures of the complainant or any of his representative on the checking report. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, in case titled Charan Singh Vs. P.S.E.B. (Chairman) and Another (I) 2006 CPJ 447, wherein it has been held:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 – Electricity Electricity – Theft – Criminal charge – Strict proof is required to establish the offence – Signatures of complainant or representative not obtained on report – No collateral evidence regarding taking into possession of PVC wire allegedly used for stealing energy produced – Electricity Board cannot raise demand on bare report of Meter Inspector – Demand notice quashed – Directions given.” 10. The opposite parties have pleaded in their written statement that they have clicked the photographs on the spot but to prove their version, no such photographs have been placed on file by the opposite parties. Further, in the case of tempering of the seals, the meter is to be removed and sent it to the ME Lab for its checking. The theft is to be proved by cogent and convincing evidence. 11. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation and the demand of Rs.36,643/- shown as sundry charges in bill 19.07.2011, is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are at liberty to charge the amount of consumed units from the complainant. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of coy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 20-10-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member | 
