DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.320 of 08-07-2011 Decided on 16-11-2011
Harbhajan Singh, aged 62 years, son of Sh. Kartar Singh, R/o Mohalla Bhulerian Gali Bhoga Bingh Driver Wali, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Secretary. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Civil Lines 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.D.Nayyar, 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 connection No.SX38/74 and has been paying the bills, issued by the opposite parties and nothing is due against him. The complainant received a memo No.719 dated 10.06.2011 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.27,823/- on the basis of checking report dated 07.06.2011 that at the time of checking the meter, ME seals were found tempered and also found internal mechanism tempered. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that the said checking dated 07.06.2011 was never made in the presence of the complainant; the said report is one sided and unilateral; he neither committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly; the alleged theft cannot be made as the meter is installed on the road; the complainant was neither given any hearing nor given a chance to file objections; no person can be punished for more than one offence whereas the opposite parties have issued a memo No.719 for Rs.27,823/- and Rs.15,000/- for compounding the offence; the meter was never shown to the complainant neither at the time of installation nor at the time of removal; he did not temper the said seals or the internal mechanism; the meter was neither packed in the cardboard box nor his signatures were obtained by the opposite parties; the said demand has been raised by the opposite parties without any basis and against rules; no formula or explanation has been given by the opposite parties that on what basis the amount has been raised. The complainant also wrote a letter dated 14..06.2011 to the opposite parties. The opposite parties had forcibly got deposited the alleged amount from the complainant under the treat of police. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 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 electricity connection of the connection holder was checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 07.06.2011 and they found that the connection holder by way of tempering the ME seals of the meter, had been controlling the electricity consumption by internally tampering with the meter. The meter was removed at the spot and packed & sealed in the cardboard box and after adopting the necessary procedure, the said meter was handed over to the concerned J.E. The opposite parties have further pleaded that one Jaswinder Singh-the owner of the house who was present at the spot, had signed the said checking report in token of its correctness and on account of his having received the copy of the same without any protest. The said checking report was also signed by the responsible officials of the opposite parties and the electricity connection was disconnected vide PDCO No.64/94910. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act and CC No. 53/2006 and Regulation No.37 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007, the connection holder had been issued a provisional order of assessment bearing memo No.719 dated 10.06.2011 for unauthorized use of electricity making a demand of Rs.27,823/- which had been calculated as per rules (i.e. L x D x H x F % = Units x Tariff x 2 x 12 months) as the recoverable amount. The complainant had also been informed vide this memo that an FIR has been recorded against him and further that in case he wanted, he could deposit another amount of Rs.15,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. The connection holder had been further asked that in case, he did not agree with this provisional order of assessment, he could file the objections, if any, within 15 days from the date of notice with SE/Dy CE DS Circle, Bathinda but he did not file any objections and as such, the said demand has become final and the connection holder has also deposited the said amount without any protest admitting the same to be correct. On merits, the opposite parties have pleaded that the said electricity connection is in the name of Balbir Singh and not in the name of the complainant. The correct and accurate meter had been installed at the premises of the connection holder after showing the same to him. It is the connection holder who had tempered with the same as per the report of the checking squad and also admitted by Jaswinder Singh, Landlord present at the spot who had signed the checking report in token of its correctness. The amount has been demanded as per rules and the same cannot be set aside. 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 had received a memo No.719 dated 10.06.2011 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act of Rs.27,823/- on the basis of checking report dated 07.06.2011 on the basis that ME seals were found tempered and the internal mechanism was also found tempered. Thus, this is a case of theft of electricity. The complainant has challenged this memo on various grounds that no alleged checking was made in the presence of the complainant; the said checking report is one sided and unilateral and the complainant neither committed any theft of electricity nor used the electricity unauthorizedly; his meter was installed outside the road in a public thoroughfare; the complainant had not been provided any opportunity of being heard and no chance has been given to file objections by the opposite parties etc. The complainant made many requests and personally met the opposite parties to withdraw the said memo and even also wrote a letter dated 14.06.2011. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties had forcibly got deposited the said amount from the complainant under the treat of police. 6. The opposite parties have submitted that the electricity connection of the connection holder was checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 07.06.2011 and on checking, it was found that the connection holder by way of tempering the ME seals of the meter, had been controlling the electricity by internally tampering with the meter. The meter was removed at the spot and packed & sealed in the cardboard box and after adopting the necessary procedure, was handed over to the concerned J.E. Jaswinder Singh, the owner of the house who was present at the spot, had signed the said checking report in token of its correctness and had received the copy of the same. The said checking report was also signed by the responsible officials of the opposite parties and his connection was disconnected vide PDCO No.64/94910 as such, as per the provisions of Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, the connection holder had been issued a provisional order of assessment No.719 dated 10.06.2011 for unauthorized use of electricity, making a demand of Rs.27,823/- on the basis of L x D x H x F % = Units x Tariff x 2 x 12 months as the recoverable amount and also informed vide this memo that an FIR has been recorded against him u/s 135 of the Electricity Act. The complainant has further conveyed that if he wanted, he could deposit another amount of Rs.15,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. The connection holder had been further asked that in case, he did not agree with this provisional order of assessment, he could file the objections within 15 days from the date of notice with SE/Dy CE DS Circle, Bathinda but he did not file any objections and as such, the said demand has become final and the connection holder has also deposited the said amount without any protest admitting the same to be correct. 7. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the complainant has been issued a provisional order of assessment u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for tempering the ME seals and internal mechanism of the meter. The opposite parties had prepared a case of theft of electricity against the complainant. 8. The case in hand is regarding theft of electricity, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this complaint. The support can be sought by law laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Ishwar Singh Vs Dakshin Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 18 (NC), wherein it has been held that:- “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(d)(ii), 21(b) – Electricity – Theft ...... – Contention, complainant committed theft of energy from PVC joint prior to meter for non-domestic purpose – Accepted ....... – in theft of electricity Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction – Complainant prima facie is not a consumer – complaint not maintainable.” 9. Therefore, the cases regarding theft of electricity are not within the preview of this Forum in the light of above mentioned settled law. The merits of the case are not touched. Hence, this complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. Thus, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court/Authority for the redressal of his grievances, if so advised and permitted by law. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 16-11-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
