DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.19 of 12-01-2011 Decided on 20-05-2011
Nirmal Singh s/o Gurdit Singh, resident of village Teona Pujarian, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its Secretary. Addl. Chief Engineer, Sub Area, Bathinda. S.D.O., PSPCL, Sub-Urban Division Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. Assistant X.E.N. Sub Division, Maur.
......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.Krishan Kumar Sharma, 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.B54TP26008N in his name. On 25.09.2010, suddenly, a truck was struck with the electric pole from where the electric wire is coming to the meter of the complainant and as a result of which, the meter alongwith wire has been broken. Due to the said accident, the Fridge alongwith stabilizer of the complainant were burnt and the complainant made a complaint to the opposite parties vide complaint No.TP26/0008 but the officials of the opposite parties did not check the meter or wire or did not the necessary repair despite repeated requests of the complainant rather they demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- to remove the defect occurred due to the accident on 25.09.2010. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Assistant X.E.N., Talwandi Sabo and the officials of the opposite parties handed over the memo No.1667 dated 27.11.2010 to the complainant, regarding the alleged theft of energy and demanded Rs.45,121/- on account of theft of energy. The complainant has alleged that neither any checking was made by the officials of the opposite parties nor the complainant was ever indulged in theft of energy. The officials of the opposite parties did not obtain any signatures of the complainant on any alleged checking as made on 25.11.2010 vide checking report No.11/201. The complainant filed an application/objections dated 27.12.2010 to the opposite parties, regarding the alleged memo but the opposite party No.2 neither gave any opportunity of hearing nor called the complainant for hearing rather dismissed the objections of the complainant vide memo No.20049/51/GC-8-Maur dated 29.12.2010. The meter of the complainant is still in OK condition as per the bills issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. The complainant requested the opposite parties to withdraw the impugned demand but the opposite parties refused to do so. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has concocted a false story regarding the struck of truck with electric pole. The opposite parties have specifically denied that the complainant lodged any complaint with the opposite parties and has made a false story regarding the demand of gratification by the officials of the opposite parties. On 25.11.2010, the connection of the complainant was checked by Er. Gagandeep Singla, A.E.E., Raman alongwith staff in the presence of Gurdarshan Singh s/o Sh. Gurdit Singh and brother of the complainant and at the time of checking, it was found that the complainant after breaking the seals of terminal plate, was controlling the reading of the consumption of the electricity, as such, the complainant was committing theft of electricity after lying wires directly. On the basis of the said checking report, a memo No.1767 dated 27.11.2010 was issued to the complainant for a sum of Rs.45,121/-. 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 learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that on 25.09.2010, suddenly, one truck struck with the electric pole from where the electric wire is coming to the meter of the complainant and as a result of which, the meter alongwith wire has been broken. Due to the said accident, the Fridge alongwith stabilizer of the complainant were burnt and he made a complaint to the opposite parties vide complaint No.TP26/0008 but the officials of the opposite parties did not check the meter or wire and did not carry out necessary repair despite repeated requests of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that on 25.09.2010, the opposite parties have demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant received a memo No.1667 dated 27.11.2010 regarding the theft of energy and demanded Rs.45,121/- on account of theft. The officials of the opposite parties did not obtain the signatures of the complainant on checking dated 25.11.2010 for which, they have issued a checking report No.11/201. The complainant has filed an application/ objections dated 27.12.2010 to the opposite parties, regarding the alleged memo but the opposite party No.2 neither gave any opportunity of hearing nor called the complainant for hearing and dismissed the objections of the complainant vide memo No.20049/51/GC-8-Maur dated 29.12.2010. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant has concocted a false story regarding the struck of truck with electric pole. On 25.11.2010, the connection of the complainant was checked by Er. Gagandeep Singla, A.E.E., Raman alongwith staff in the presence of Gurdarshan Singh s/o Sh. Gurdit Singh and brother of the complainant and at the time of checking, it was found that the complainant after breaking the seals of terminal plate and was controlling the reading of the consumption of electricity directly, as such, he was committing theft of electricity after lying wire directly. On the basis of the said checking report, a memo No.1767 dated 27.11.2010 was issued to the complainant for a sum of Rs.45,121/-. 7. The complainant has placed on file Ex.C-8 which is an application written by Malkit Singh, Lineman dated 31.03.2011 to Assistant Executive Engineer in which he has specifically mentioned that he has not attended the complaint of the complainant and forget to register the complaint of the complainant in Complaint Register. 8. The information given by the Assistant Engineer vide Ex.C-7 that when he was asked to give information under RTI Act regarding the complaint of the complainant which has not been attended by the opposite parties. In reply to this, they have given the report that the complaint was not attended on the same day but on the next day, the supply of the house of the complainant was working and show cause notice has been sent to the official of the opposite parties that why he did not attend the complaint of the complainant. 9. As per Ex.C-9 which is the copy of Complaint Register dated 25.09.2010 shows that the complaint of the complainant is duly registered in which it has been specifically written that the truck has been struck with the electric pole from where the electric wire was going to the meter of the complainant and as a result of which, the meter alongwith wire has been broken and due to the said accident, the Fridge alongwith stabilizer of the complainant were burnt and the complainant made a complaint to the opposite parties vide complaint No.TP26/0008. 10. Further, the checking report, Ex.C-14 is signed by one Gurdarshan Singh dated 25.11.2010, has been conducted in the premises of the complainant by Er. Gagandeep Singla, A.E.E., Raman alongwith staff in the presence of Gurdarshan Singh s/o Sh. Gurdit Singh and brother of the complainant and at the time of checking, it was found that the complainant after breaking the seals of terminal plate, was controlling the reading of the consumption of electricity, as such, the complainant was committing theft of electricity after lying wire directly. This checking was conducted in the premises of the complainant approximately after 2 months of the complaint, no body has attended this complaint. As per RTI information taken by the complainant when his complaint was not heard, he must have got connected his electricity supply from some outside electrician. When the opposite parties receive any complaint, they are duty bound to resolve that within stipulated period. 11. In the present case, the complaint of the complainant has not heard for approximately 2 months. The complainant had used the electricity for 2 months directly for which the opposite parties can recover the bill on average basis of consumption of last corresponding months of last year. 12. The ME seals were found broken and the complainant was found using the electricity unauthorizedly as per the checking report. His meter was not sent to the ME Lab in order to confirm the theft which is mandatory to send the meter in the ME Lab as per rules and regulations of the opposite parties and check it in the presence of the complainant. Thus, the opposite parties have wrongly made the case of theft on false grounds knowing fully well that the complainant has lodged the complaint regarding the struck off of the meter by truck. 13. In view of what has been discussed above, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they have not attended the complaint of the complainant, the meter was not sent to ME Lab and not asked the complainant to appear before the ME Lab to get checked his meter in his presence. In the absence of ME Lab report, the opposite parties cannot raise any demand. 14. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation and the demand of Rs.45,121/- raised by the opposite parties vide memo No.1667 dated 27.11.2010 is hereby quashed. The complainant has already deposited Rs.15,000/- vide receipt No.553 dated 25.01.2011 with the order of this Forum for seeking the stay. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit till realization. The opposite parties are at liberty to recover the amount on the average basis for 2 months in which the complainant used electricity directly. Compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 20-05-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
