BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/779 of 10.9.2010 

                                                Decided on:          21.9.2011

Baljinder Singh aged about 42 years son of Late Sh.Avtar Singh resident of village Mohabbatpur P.O.Kauli,Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

1.                 Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala through its Chairman cum Managing Director.

2.                 Assistant Executive Engineer, Operation Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., ,Bahadurgarh, District Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite parties.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Partap Singh, Advocate

For opposite parties:     Sh.J.S.Grewal, Advocate

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          It is the case of the complainant that electricity connection bearing account No.F-3/911 was issued in the name of Arjun Singh s/o Lal Singh r/o village Boharpur Janherian . Arjun Singh had a landed estate. He had three sons Angrej Singh, Swaran Singh and Sahib Singh. Angrej Singh and Sahib Singh have died. The family had three tubewell connections one each for the sons of Arjun Singh. Swaran Singh had two sons namely Gurjeet Singh and Mandeep Singh who were having tubewell connection of their share recorded in the name of their grand father.

2.       It is further averred that the complainant and his brothers namely Balwinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh had purchased the land of Gurjeet Singh and Mandeep Singh vide sale deed No.474 dated 9.8.2005. The complainant also purchased the tubewell connection and thus the complainant is a beneficiary of the connection.

3.       It is averred that the ops had issued the order of provisional assessment vide memo no.1165 dated 28.6.2010 in respect of account No.F-3/911 having raised the demand of Rs.77344/- +  the compounding charges of Rs.15000/- on the basis of the alleged theft of the energy under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003( for short the Act of 2003) alleging that 7 ½ BHP motor was being run from 100KVA transporter, Sahib Singh wala Boharpur Janherian.

4.       It is averred that the order of assessment has been issued without any basis. No checking of the connection was made by any authority and the allegations regarding the theft being committed with the help of 7 ½ BHP motor  have been made falsely. The connection of the complainant is of 7 ½ BHP and the motor is running at the site. The complainant had never connected any other motor. The bore of the complainant had failed in the month of March 2010 and he installed a new bore near the previous one  and only one bore is being run with the motor by the complainant.

5.       On receipt of the order of assessment dated 18.6.2010, the complainant visited the office of op no.2 and requested to withdraw the order of assessment, who assured that the matter will be got investigated and if notice is found to be false, the same will be withdrawn. However, no.2 failed to withdraw the notice. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for a direction to the ops to quash the order of assessment; to pay him Rs.7000/- by way of compensation on account of harassment and the mental agony experienced by him at the hands of the ops and further to award him costs of the complaint.

6.       On notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version having raised certain preliminary objections, interalia, that the order of assessment having been issued under Section 135 of the Act of 2003, the same could not be challenged before the Forum and the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act. As regards the facts of the complaint, it is admitted that the electricity connection bearing account No.F-3/911 was issued in the name of Angrej Singh s/o Lal Singh. Neither sons nor grand sons of Angrej Singh have ever applied for the transfer of connection in their name. Even the complainant has not bothered to apply for the transfer of the same in his favour. It is denied that Angrej Singh and Sahib Singh are /were the sons of Arjun Singh s/o Lal Singh and that Gurjit Singh and Manjeet Singh are his grand sons who succeeded his agricultural property. Similarly, it is denied if Gurdeep Singh and Mandeep Singh sold the agricultural land to the complainant. The tubewell connection was never transferred in the name of Gurjeet Singh and Mandeep Singh  and therefore the complainant can not claim himself to be the beneficiary of the same.

7.       It is further averred that the electricity connection was checked on 16.6.6.2010 by AAE Taranjit Singh and JE Rajinder Singh of the PSPCL Patiala and it was found that the complainant was committing theft of the energy by way of running a 7 ½ BHP motor from the direct supply taken from 100KVA transporter Sahib Singh wala Boharpur Janherian with the help of 85 meter cable. The cable was got into possession. A checking report was prepared at the spot, the copy of which was delivered to the representative of the complainant.

8.       On the basis of the checking report demand notice no.1165 dated 28.6.2010 for Rs.92,344/- was issued to the complainant and he was also advised to file the objections before SE Operation, Patiala,  a Designated Authority, in case he was not agreeable to the  order of assessment and that he could also prefer an appeal before the Special Court but the consumer failed to file the objections and thus has admitted the allegations of the theft. The demand was raised in accordance with the Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters Regulations 2007.

9.       It is denied if the bore of the complainant had failed in the month of March 2010 and he installed a new bore near the previous one and that only one bore with the motor was being run by the complainant.

10.     The ops have also made a reference to regulation no.37.4.2 concerning to Shifting of the Connections as provided under Electricity Supply Regulation PSEB Patiala 2005 as also of regulation 38.1 regarding the Change of the name of the consumer, which the complainant failed to comply. Ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

11.     In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence,Ex.C1,  his sworn affidavit,alongwith the documents,Exs.C2 to C3 and his learned counsel closed the evidence.

12.     On the other hand, on behalf of the ops, their learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the written reply to the complaint in the form of the affidavit, Ex.R4, the sworn affidavit of JE Rajinder Singh, of PSPCL, Patiala alongwith documents,Exs.R2 to R3 and closed their evidence.

13.     The parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

14.     Admittedly the electricity connection bearing account No.F-3/911 was issued in the name of Arjun Singh S/o Lal Singh. The complainant has not led any evidence to show that the very land where the electricity connection in question was installed was inherited by Angrej Singh,Swaran Singh and Sahib Singh from Arjun Singh and that Swaran Singh was further inherited by Gurjeet Singh and Mandeep Singh in respect of the said land which fact could easily be proved by the complainant by way of producing the record of rights of the aforesaid persons.

15.     Ex.C3 photo copy of the sale deed executed by Gurjeet Singh and Mandeep Singh son of Swaran Singh in respect of  the land measuring 26 bighas 10 marlas in favour of the complainant Baljinder Singh and his brothers Gurwinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh on 10.8.2005 can not be taken as the conclusive evidence so as to say that this is the same very land which was at one time owned by Arjun Singh and then inherited by his sons Angrej Singh,Swaran Singh and Sahib Singh and finally by Gurjeet Singh and Mandeep Singh and that the electricity connection is also lying installed in the same.

16.     There is no evidence to show that Gurjeet Singh and Mandeep Singh ever made a use of the electricity connection bearing A/c No.F-3/911 which could easily be proved by the complainant by producing a pass book of the electricity connection.

17.     Ex.R2 is the copy of the checking report dated 16.6.2010 got proved by the ops with the assistance of the sworn affidavit Ex.R4 of JE Rajinder Singh of PSPCL, Patiala who had conducted the checking of the electricity connection no.F-3/911 being a member of the checking team. In the checking report,Ex.R2, it is recorded that the consumer was not present at the spot and that the labourers were sowing the paddy. The report is shown to have been signed by AAE Taranjit Singh. As per the checking report the consumer was running a 7 ½ BHP electric motor with the help of 85 meter cable connected directly with the 100KVA supply line away from the starter/main board as highlighted with the help of diagram made in the checking report,Ex.R2.

18.     On the basis of the checking report op no.2 had sent the order of assessment,Ex.R3 vide memo no.1165 dated 28.6.2010 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act of 2003 having raised the demand of Rs.92,344/- on account of theft of the energy also having advised the consumer that in case he was not agreeable to the order of assessment he could prefer the objections before SE Operation, Patiala within 15 days of the receipt of the order of assessment.

19.     It was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that  it is admitted by the complainant that the bore of the complainant had failed in the month of March 2010 and therefore, he had installed a new tubewell bore near the previous one and with the help of which the only one motor was being run.

20.     `It was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that it is provided under regulation 37.4.2 of the Electricity Supply Regulation PSEB, Patiala 2005, “ where the tubewell connection is required to be shifted( due to change of bore) within the premises i.e. same killa of land or 200feet from the existing bore and if the tube well connection can be shifted by using the old LT service cable only for the new site without any additional material, provided no LT/HT line becomes idle after shifting, the shifting shall be carried out and the initial shifting fee prescribed in para 37.1 shall be payable”

21.     Regulation no.37.1 provides that, “ if an industrial/tubewell consumer wants to shift his connection, it may be allowed by the AE/AEE/XEN/Sr.Xen/SE/CE/(Ops) within their jurisdiction”.

22.     Regulation 37.1.1 provides the fee of Rs.500/- per connection in respect of the connected load upto 20KW.

23.     It was submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant failed to abide by the regulations 37.1, 37.1.1 and 37.4.2 and therefore, it amounted to the unauthorized use of the electricity and therefore, the ops were justified in having raised the demand by way of serving the complainant with the order of provisional assessment,Ex.R3.

24.     It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the ops that the complainant has not produced in evidence the affidavit of his vendors namely Gurjeet Singh and Mandeep Singh           to the effect that they were making a use of the electricity connection in question and that they have sold their right in the same to the complainant.

25.     We have considered the submissions and find that the complainant has not been able to show that he is a consumer of the electricity connection in question with the consent of the person in whose name the connection was installed or any of his beneficiaries. We also find that the ops have been able to establish that the complainant was committing theft of the energy unauthorizedly having connected 7 ½ BHP motor with 100KVA supply line with the help of 85 meter cable and consequently we do not find any reason to doubt the action resorted to by the ops against the complainant having served him with the order of provisional assessment. In the case of the citation Uttari Haryana Bijlee Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. Versus Karam Chand 2010(2)CLT 3 , the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi observed, “ if the respondent was aggrieved with the provisional assessment made by the Assessing Officer, it was open to him to file objection and eventually to move the Appellate Authority and Statutory Body, constituted under the Act. The notice, imposing penalty was also acknowledged by respondent. We do not feel impressed about any action resorted to by the respondent challenging either the alleged inspection or imposition of penalty, as required under the Act.” and in the light thereof , we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced.

Dated:21.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President