DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.126 of 22-03-2011 Decided on 28-06-2011
Mohal Lal Jindal, aged about 66 years, son of Sh. Ramji Dass son of Sh. Assa Ram, Resident of House No.17281, Gali No.6, Pukhraj Colony, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary. SDO/AEE, Cantt Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, 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 electric connection bearing A/c No.MC-81/287 with sanctioned load of 6.76 kw since 1994. On 18.08.2010, some officials of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited alongwith Police approached the house of the complainant and got the signatures of the complainant on some printed papers. Thereafter, the complainant received memo No.717 dated 20.08.2010 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.49,755/- from the opposite parties. The complainant has alleged that fearing police action and under threat of electric disconnection, he paid the above said amount through demand draft No.644341 dated 20.08.2010 issued from State Bank of Patiala, Bathinda under protest. The opposite parties issued receipt No.382 dated 20.08.2010 issued in book No.2367. The complainant has further alleged that the said amount was charged for 12 months that too at excessive rate. Thereafter, the complainant approached the SE OP Circle, Bathinda as per directions contained in the said letter dated 20.08.2010. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 issued a fresh demand of Rs.33,433/- bearing memo No.886 dated 13.06.2010 under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The complainant has challenged the above said demands on various grounds that no demand as per memo dated 20.08.2010 could be raised under Section 135 of the Electricity Act without complying with Section 126 of the Electricity Act; the seals of the meter are still intact; no photographs were taken at the time of alleged theft, even connected wire was not recovered from the spot nor any evidence was collected regarding alleged theft and the signatures of the complainant were obtained on the said checking report under police pressure; at the time of inspection, the meter was checked by putting excess load and the meter was okey; previously, the bills of the complainant were from Rs.800/- to Rs.1,400/- with connected load of 3.560 kw; no wire was passing from outside the meter and there was no excessive consumption. On 01.09.2010, the Designated Authority reduced the compensation charges from 12 months to 8 months; the Checking Authority made wrong statement that the seals of the MTC/MCB were not fixed. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the electricity connection of the complainant had been checked on 18.08.2010 by AEE Enforcement at the premises of the complainant and on checking, it had been found that the incoming underground PVC cable coming to the meter had been tampered with by making a joint near the meter and the direct wire had been put through this joint and the load was being consumed directly by way of by-passing the meter. The meter and wire were removed and packed in the Card board box and seal No.178894 dated 18.08.2010 was put on the same. The complainant who was present at the spot had signed the checking report in token of its correctness and had received a copy of the checking report. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act and CC No.53/2006 and Regulation No.37 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 of the opposite parties, the complainant had been issued a provisional order of assessment No.717 dated 20.08.2010 for unauthorized use of electricity for a sum of Rs.49,755/- 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 and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.24,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. He had been further asked that in case, he did not agree with this provisional order, he could file objections within 15 days from the date of notice. The complainant filed objections before the Designated Authority who after hearing the complainant and considering all the factors including consumption data, had passed the order according to which, instead of 12 months, compensation was ordered to be charged for 8 months and accordingly, an amount of Rs.33,433/- was finally find out to be recoverable from him. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the complainant without any protest had made the payment of Rs.49,755/- to the opposite parties. Since, the amount had been reduced to Rs.33,433/-, the balance amount shall be refunded to the complainant in the next consumption bills. The opposite parties have also taken the support of law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (DB) in case titled Kamal Kumar Vs PSEB, 2009 (2) RCR 815. 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 received a memo No.717 dated 20.08.2010 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for a demand of Rs.49,755/-. The complainant fearing Police action and under threat of disconnection of electricity connection, paid the said amount on the same day i.e. on 20.08.2010 through demand draft No.644341 dated 20.08.2010 issued from State Bank of Patiala, Bathinda under protest which was received by the opposite parties vide receipt No.382 dated 20.08.2010 issued in book No.2367. The complainant has provided in para no.12 of the complaint the details of the said demand raised which is read as under:- 6.67 x 30 x 30% 487 100 x 6.22 = 622 200 x 9.04 = 1808187 x 9.56 = 1788_______Total = 4218 x 12 = 50616Less already paid -6585_______44031ED charges +5724_______Total amount allegedly payable 49755______The said amount was charged for 12 months at excessive rate. A memo No.717 dated 20.08.2010 Ex.R-3 shows that it had been found that the incoming underground PVC cable coming to the meter had been tampered with by making a joint near the meter underground and the direct wire had been put through this joint and the load was being consumed directly by way of by-passing the meter. Thus, making it to be a unauthorized use of electricity and theft of energy. The electricity connection of the complainant had been checked on 18.08.2010 by AEE, Enforcement, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited at the premises of the complainant. The complainant was found using electricity unauthorizedly and committing theft of energy. The meter and wire were removed and packed in the Card board box and seal No.178894 dated 18.08.2010 was put on the same. The complainant who was present at the spot had signed the checking report in token of its correctness and on account of his having received a copy of the same. Accordingly, as per the provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act and CC No.53/2006 and Regulation No.37 of Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulation 2007 of the opposite parties, the complainant had been issued a provisional order of assessment No.717 dated 20.08.2010 for unauthorized use of electricity,making a demand of Rs.49,755/-. The opposite parties had also informed vide this memo that an FIR has been recorded against him on the basis of said theft of electricity under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. He was further asked to deposit Rs.24,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings or he could file objections within 15 days from the date of notice. The complainant filed objections against the provisional order of assessment. It was heard by the Designated Authority after hearing the complainant and considering all the factors including consumption data, it had passed an order according to which, instead of 12 months, the compensation was ordered to be charged for 8 months. The account of the complainant was overhauled and accordingly, an amount of Rs.33,433/- was finally found to be recoverable from the complainant. The complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.49,755/- without any protest. Since, the amount has been reduced to Rs.33,433/-, the balance amount shall be refunded in the next consumption bills. 6. The Consumption Data of the complainant had been given due consideration, by the Designated Authority and final order had been passed. The opposite parties have relied upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (DB) in case titled Kamal Kumar Vs. PSEB, 2009 (2) RCR page 815. 7. On the photocopies of Bank drafts and receipt Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 respectively, nothing has been mentioned that the amount has been paid under protest. Moreover, the checking report clearly depicts that the checking was done in the presence of the complainant and he had duly signed the checking report in token of its correctness and had also received the copy of the same in which, it had been specifically mentioned that the complainant was found committing theft of electricity as the incoming underground PVC cable coming to the meter had been tampered with by making a joint near the meter and the direct wire had been put through this joint and the load was being consumed directly by way of by-passing the meter. The meter was removed and packed in the Card board box and seal no.178894 dated 18.08.2010 was affixed on it, was duly signed by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant filed objections which were decided by Designated Authority and has reduced the amount from 12 months to 8 months. The opposite parties have admitted in their reply that the excessive amount is refundable to the complainant and that will be adjusted in future bills. 8. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced 28.06.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
|
