DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/10/312 of 30.4.2010 Decided on: 23.11.2010 Sinder Singh son of Surmukh Singh son of Phulla Singh, resident of village Kaul, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Managing Director. 2. SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Nabha, 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.D.S.Tung, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.Pawan Puri, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Sinder 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 a domestic electric connection bearing account No.CM-30/0017-L so issued in the name of Phulla Singh by the opposite parties. The grand father of the complainant has expired about 4/5 years and thereafter the complainant has been using the said electricity connection and has been regularly paying the bills of the electricity connection. That the complainant has received a bill dated 22.3.2009 for Rs.4224/- so issued by the opposite parties( formerly P.S.E.B.) but the complainant due to some family problem could not deposit the same well in time and lateron the electricity connection of the house of the complainant was disconnected. That the complainant deposited the amount of the said bill on 24.7.2009, vide receipt dated 24.7.2009 and as such nothing is due against the complainant. That inspite of depositing of the amount due on 24.7.2009, the opposite parties did not restore the electricity connection of the complainant. That the opposite parties wrongly and illegally issued a memo no.603 dated 23.2.2010 alleging therein that the house of the complainant was checked on 20.2.2010 and the complainant was using the electricity unauthorizedly, and an amount of Rs.79944/- alongwith the compounding amount has been demanded from the complainant. That the alleged memo dated 23.2.2010 and the demand made therein is illegal, null and void not binding on the complainant and the complainant is not liable to pay any such amount, nor the opposite parties have any right to recover any amount from the complainant. That the complainant never made any theft of the electricity as alleged in the memo. The premises of the complainant were never inspected by the opposite parties in the presence of the complainant or any of his family members. No person of the village was joined by the checking party, at the time of alleged checking, nor any name has been mentioned in the checking report in whose presence the alleged checking was made by the opposite iparties. That the opposite parties are now threatening to recover the said amount from the complainant, forcibly and illegally and are not restoring the electricity connection of the house of the complainant, to which the opposite iparties have no right, title or authority. That the threatened action of the opposite iparties is illegal, unjust, improper and invades the legal and vested right of the complainant. That the complainant approached and requested the opposite parties to withdraw the said letter/memo dated 23.2.2010 and to restore the electricity connection of the house of the complainant, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. That due to the issuance of the squid illegal notice and raising the illegal demand and disconnection of the electricity connection of the house of the complainant, by the opposite parties the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and as such the complainant is entitled to damages from the opposite parties to the tune of Rs.50000.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 denied that the complainant has any concern with the connection in any manner. It is denied that thecomplainant is a consumer of the opposite parties of the connection in dispute. The connection is in the name of Phula Singh. The complainant has not taken any approval from the consumer namely Phula Singh to use the connection during his life time. That the connection of the complainant was checked by the enforcement officers of the opposite parties on 20.2.2010 and it was detected that the complainant was committing theft of energy directly from the service line of the Board i.e. by making kundi. The manner and method of committing theft of energy by the complainant has been duly explained by the checking team in the checking report. The representative of the consumer namely Gurmit Kaur was present at the site at the time of checking the connection and had also signed the checking report in token of correctness of such checking by the checking officials of the Board. The wire with the aid of which, the consumer was committing theft of energy was removed from the site and the same was taken in possession by the checking team. The same has been handed over to the concerned official of sub division for keeping the same in the safe custody of sub division. The assessing officer of the Power Corporation on receipt of the report from the checking team had issued a notice to the consumer under Section 135 of the Electricity Act,2003 vide which demand of Rs.79,944/- was raised against the consumer for committing theft of electricity energy. The consumer was directed to file the objections before the competent authority of the Power Corporation if he so desires but the complainant failed to file any objections. The non filing of objections by the consumer amounts to admission of guilt. It is a settled law that a person who is not ready and willing to avail the opportunity of defending himself as was provided to him by a statutory authority amounts to as he has nothing to say against the proposed action and admits his liability. The allegations regarding the alleged bill of Rs.4224/- has no relevancy with the present dispute of committing theft of electricity by the complainant. The complainant was caught of committing theft of electricity. The complainant has tried to misrepresent the facts before this Forum . It is denied that the connection of the complainant was not restored on deposit of the bimonthly energy bill amount of Rs.4224/-.It is denied that the opposite parties have wrongly and illegally issued memo no.603 dated 23.2.2010 .The allegations of the complaint are false. It is denied that the connection of the complainant was not checked on 20.2.2010.The checking was by higher authorities of the opposite iparties i.e. Senior Executive Engineer/Enforcement,P.S.E.B.Patiala alongwith J.E..The checking report is self speaking. It is denied that the complainant has not committed any theft of energy. It is denied that there is any illegality in conducting the checking or raising the demand. The allegations of the complaint are specifically denied. There is no question of withdrawal of the demand as the same has been raised as per rules. It is denied that the complainant has suffered in any manner. 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 complainant has filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Admittedly previously the grand father of complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties against account No.CH-30/0017-L.At the time of checking the checking staff found the complainant using electricity by direct pilferage from the main service line of the Power Corporation i.e. by making kundi.These facts have been corroborated by the officials who filed their affidavits,Exs.R2 ( Er.Gurpreet Singh Gill)& R3 (Er.Mann Singh,JE). They are not shown to have any illwill or enmity against the complainant so as to make a false report. The theft of electricity from the main line was being facilitated by the complainant. In the report detail of the load being used by the complainant has been given and the same has not been controverted.The checking report further shows that the checking was affected in the presence of Gurmit Kaur, representative of the consumer who had countersigned the checking report in token of correctness of the checking report. The perusal of the permanent disconnection order, Ex.R6 dated 25.2.2009 would show that connection of the complainant was permanently disconnected. The checking in this case was effected on 20.2.2010 meaning thereby on the day of checking the complainant was not having electric connection. Therefore, rising of the demand on account of theft of energy by the complainant would not be deficiency of service. 7. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed accordingly being without any merit. In the peculiar circumstances, however, parties to bear their own costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:2311.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
