DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.78 of 09-02-2011 Decided on 06-06-2011
Sukhdev Singh, aged about 45 years, son of Sh. Babu Singh son of Sh. Inder Singh, Resident of villge Khemuana, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala, through its MD/CMD/Chairman. SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Distribution Sub Division, Nathana. Sh. Jagjit Singh, SDO, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Distribution Sub Division, Nathana. Sh. Narinder Pal Singh, JE, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Distribution Sub Division, Nathana.
......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 connection No.B91KH410535K. The complainant got a memo No.741 dated 23.09.2010 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.18,830/- on the basis of checking report dated 19.06.2010 that the complainant was getting the supply by putting a direct kundi from the main PVC and meter was by-passed. The complainant approached the Deputy Chief Engineer on 30.09.2010 who dismissed the objections of the complainant vide its order No.13222/24-G.C.8-A/Bhagta of 13.10.2010 and reduce the amount from Rs.18,830/- to Rs.14,766/- without any reason. The complainant got a memo No.946 dated 02.011.2010 of Rs.14,766/- from the opposite parties. The complainant has challenged the said memo on various grounds that the said checking dated 19.06.2010 was neither made in the presence of the complainant nor his signatures were obtained; the said checking was not made on 19.06.2010 rather it was made on 16.09.2010 and the opposite party Nos.3&4 got the signatures on the alleged checking report by saying load is less and they are extending the load; the alleged checking report dated 19.06.2010 was not sent to the complainant; he neither committed any theft nor used the electricity unauthorizedly; the complainant filed many complaints before the SSP, Bathinda and other officials of the opposite parties but no action was taken against the opposite party Nos.3&4. The opposite party Nos.3&4 demanded the money of Rs.12,000/- for settling the matter; the complainant deposited Rs.14,766/- on 23.11.2010 under protest; no provisional notice or memo regarding the alleged theft was ever issued to the complainant; the opposite parties never pointed out any defect or made any complaint regarding the alleged theft; no final order of assessment was made. 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 by the officials of the opposite parties on 16.09.2010 and on checking, it had been found that the complainant by way of putting a changeover was directly consuming the electricity by way of unauthorized means. The connected load at the spot as found to be 3.192 kw as against the sanctioned load of 0.960 kw. The checking report had been made at the spot. The complainant who was present at the spot, had signed the checking report without any protest in token of its correctness and on account of his having received the copy of the same. 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 of the opposite parties, the complainant had been issued a provisional order of assessment No.741 dated 23.09.2010 for Rs.18,830/- which had been calculated as per rules (i.e. LxDxHxF % = Units x Tariff x 2 x 12 months) as the recoverable amount and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.12,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings. The complainant had been further asked that in case, he did not agree with this provisional order, he could file objections if any, within 15 days from the date of notice. The opposite parties have further pleaded that due to typographical error, the date of checking in the said memo had been written as 19.06.2010 instead of 16.09.2010 and the same had been signed by the complainant himself. The complainant had been informed regarding the said error in the memo. Thereafter, the complainant filed objections dated 30.09.2010 against the said memo which were heard by the designated authority in the presence of the complainant and giving him opportunity to be heard, the designated authority vide its order dated 13.10.2010, passed the order after seeking the entire record and the consumption data of the complainant reduced the amount from 12 months to 10 months. A final order of assessment vide memo No.946 dated 02.11.2010 was issued to the complainant and he deposited the same being fully satisfied. 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 got a memo No.741 dated 23.09.2010 u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for a sum of Rs.18,830/- on the basis of checking report dated 19.06.2010 that the complainant was using the electricity supply by putting direct kundi from the main PVC and the meter was by-passed. The complainant approached the Deputy Chief Engineer on 30.09.2010 who dismissed the objections of the complainant and an amount of Rs.18,830/- was reduced to Rs.14,766/-. The complainant got a memo No.946 dated 02.011.2010 of Rs.14,766/-. The complainant specifically alleged that the checking dated 19.06.2010 was neither made in his presence nor his signatures were obtained; the checking was not made on 19.06.2010 rather it was made on 16.09.2010; the opposite parties got the signatures of the complainant on the checking report by saying that load is less and they are extending the load. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party Nos.3&4 demanded Rs.12,000/- for settling the matter. The complainant deposited Rs.14,766/- on 23.11.2010 under protest. 6. The electricity connection of the complainant had been checked by the officials of the opposite parties on 16.09.2010 and on checking, it has been found that the complainant by way of putting a changeover was directly consuming electricity from the main PVC thus by passing the meter and was controlling the electricity supply by way of unauthorized means. The connected load at the spot was found to be 3.192 kw as against the sanctioned load of 0.960 kw. The checking report had been made at the spot and the complainant who was present at the spot, had signed the checking report without any protest. 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 of the opposite parties, the complainant had been issued a provisional order of assessment No.741 dated 23.09.2010 for unauthorized use of electricity, making a demand of Rs.18,830/- which was calculated as per rules. The complainant had been informed vide this memo that an FIR has been recorded against him on the basis of the said theft u/s 135 of the Electricity Act and further in case he wanted, he could deposit another amount of Rs.12,000/- as compounding charges to avoid the criminal proceedings and 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 with SE/Dy CE DS Circle, Bathinda. The opposite parties have specifically mentioned that due to typographical error, the date of checking in the said memo had been written as 19.06.2010 instead of 16.09.2010 which is the actual checking date as per the checking report and the same had been signed by the complainant himself. The complainant had been informed regarding the said error in the memo. The complainant thereafter filed objections dated 30.09.2010 against the said memo which were heard by the Designated Authority. The Designated Authority vide its order dated 13.10.2010 has passed the order after seeking the entire record and the consumption data of the complainant reduced the amount to 10 months instead of 12 months. A fresh order of assessment vide memo No.946 dated 02.11.2010 was issued to the complainant and he having fully satisfied about the same, had deposited the said amount without any protest. The opposite parties have taken the support of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court (DB) in case titled Kamal Kumar Vs. PSEB, RCR 2009 (2) 815. 7. In para No.6(h) of the written statement on merit, the opposite parties have specifically denied that the allegations levelled by the complainant that no such money has been ever demanded by the opposite parties. It is made up story to avoid the payment. The mobile number written behind the bill does not mean that the same had been noted down for the purpose of demanding the money from the complainant. The complainant of his own got the number noted down for the reasons best known to him. This version of the opposite parties seems to be true as nothing about the illegal demand of Rs.12,000/- has been mentioned on the bill. 8. A perusal of bill dated 01.08.2010 Ex.C-7 shows that the meter number mentioned in this bill is 44939 with sanctioned load 0.960 kw and the account number is B91KH410535K whereas the account number mentioned in Ex.R-1 is K134/535. In the checking report also, the account number is mentioned as K134/535 and the meter number as 449393. The opposite parties have specifically pleaded that the date of checking report has been wrongly mentioned but nowhere in their reply, they have mentioned that the meter number has also been wrongly mentioned due to typographical mistake. Further, no photography has been done that how the theft was being done by way of putting the changeover from main PVC. The rough sketch shown on the checking report shows that the complainant was using the electricity by putting the changeover and directly consuming the electricity from main PVC and by- passing the meter. In this way, he was controlling the electricity supply by way of unauthorized means. The opposite parties have prepared a case of theft of electricity whereas under the rules and regulations of the opposite parties that the meter is to be removed, in such circumstances and the supply to be disconnected. In the present case, neither the meter was removed nor the electricity supply was disconnected as provided under regulation No.37.2(1)(i). Further, if there is excess load running on the connection of the complainant, the opposite parties can recover the difference of load from the complainant. Nothing has been placed on file as in the found condition which is mandatory in case of theft of electricity under the rules of the opposite parties. 9. The Review of Assessment Order Ex.R-2 shows that the account has been reviewed and amount was reduced from 12 months to 10 months. The sanctioned load was 0.960 kw and the connected load is 3.192 kw. The opposite parties have raised a demand of Rs.18,830/- vide memo No.741 dated 23.09.2010 and after hearing the objections, the demand was reduced to Rs.14,766/- vide order dated 02.11.2010. The complainant has deposited Rs.14,766/- under protest. 10. From what has been discussed above, it is concluded that the complainant has been using the excess load which cannot be termed as theft of electricity. The opposite parties have failed to prove their version that he has been committing theft of electricity by using the changeover from main PVC. At the most, the opposite parties can recover the difference of load from the complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, this complaint is accepted with Rs.500/- as cost against the opposite party Nos.1&2 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos.3&4. The opposite parties are directed to charge the amount with regard to the difference of load only not on account of theft. The opposite parties are also directed to adjust the amount which has already been deposited by the complainant in the difference of load for the period specified by the designated authority and in his future bills. Compliance of this order be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned. ’
Pronounced 06.06.2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
| 
